The first time around, you paid a small portion as FICA, $200-300 a paycheck. Now you are getting a lot more per month. If SS is all you get, you’ll likely pay nothing in tax, even to the ‘greedy’ states. If you have other income, you’ll pay more.
Hey, if you want it to be free, move to Florida where everything else is taxed. Everything!
Food isn’t taxed in Florida!! But watch out for home owners insurance bills!!!
Here’s a better resource than taxes alone. For example, Alaska has very little taxes but has a high cost of living. New York is high in both!
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/opportunity/affordability
Hawaii is high on both cost of living and taxes BUT at least does not currently tax pensions, so it gives those folks who get pensions a break on that. They also have relatively low property taxes, as long as you’re an owner occupant, especially if you are old enough to qualify for an old-age exemption of $40,000 reduction in your property value (considering many properties are 7 figures, this isn’t much of a discount).
I guess we honestly earn our 50th of 50 ranking on the above article. Sadly about 1/2 of the children in our state are on free or reduced lunch and we have the highest per capital homeless population in the nation. 
I want to retire to Oklahoma - said no one ever.
Well my nephew-in-law is yet another who was born in OK and has loved ones there but never plans to live there. They’re thinking HI or CA. 
I have a colleague who recently relocated to NJ from OK for this job, and he is continually in awe with the schools, local services, and other amenities that the higher taxes pay for. Not going to be going back there, I’m pretty certain.
The perfect place to retire to is one the rich, through taxes, have already made pretty and perfect. And if the not so rich had to kick in, that’s kind of okay, since the the wage scale (which unfortunately correlates to the cost of living) for these perfect places is only almost unbearably high.
Maybe not almost, since net population gain/loss data says there’s a significant number of people in high tax/high service states that are voting with their feet.
My suspicion is taxes are a relatively minor factor. Most high cost of living states have aging populations. Retirees move out in droves for warmer climates and lower cost of living. Taxes are a factor in cost of living, but certainly not the only one, and rarely the largest one.
A pretty sensible strategy for many people is to live and work in a high cost of living/high wage/high salary state through one’s prime working years, then to cash out on home equity and other forms of savings and investments to retire comfortably in a low cost state. If you sell a house in Boston (median home price $398,000) and buy one in, say, Port St. Lucie, Florida (median home price $188,000) you’ll pocket a tidy profit of $210,000, leaving you far ahead of the guy who spent his whole life in Port St. Lucie. Plus wages and salaries in most occupations are 40% to 50% higher in Boston than in Port St. Lucie. Sure, you’ll pay higher taxes in Boston, but your 401(k) will also be fatter, as will other investments and, for most people, your Social Security check as a result of higher lifetime earnings.
^ I want one of those median $398,000 homes in Boston…
California basically allows you to pursue this strategy, while staying in-state.
If you are in your prime working years, then CA is typically a high wage/high cost state. CA has relatively high rates of income and sales tax, and real estate costs are obviously high as well.
But now let’s say you retire in CA. Let’s also say that you bought a house in CA 25 years ago, and that it has greatly appreciated in value. Turns out that CA property tax rates are surprisingly low by national standards, due to the famous “Proposition 13”. Furthermore, CA property taxes are based on the value of your house when you bought it – not the current value. Many out-of-staters are shocked to discover how low CA property taxes are for long-time homeowners.
As a retired homeowner in CA, you can:
Many Californians consider selling their expensive houses and moving to lower-cost states after retirement. However, it often turns out to be more cost-effective to stay in-state. If you buy a lower-cost house in another state, the property taxes will reset, and they may be much more than what you pay in CA.
I was pleasantly surprised when I researched the tax burden of California vs Illinois before we moved from the Chicago suburbs. Our property tax is less even though our home is valued one-third higher. The state income tax is graduated vs flat rate, and you can take off itemized or standard deductions. So even though Illinois didn’t tax pensions, it worked out well for us.
However… we knew gas would be higher but did experience sticker shock on utilities - water and power costs are higher even though power usage is much less because of the very high rates. Cable/internet is also higher.
Quality of life, otoh, is so much better here and that’s priceless.
According to the “tax burden by state” link in Post #16 above, Illinois is #8 nationally for state taxes, while California is #10. Not much of a difference; obviously both are “high-tax” states overall.
But if you look at property taxes specifically, then Illinois is #9, while California is tied for #31. OK, now there’s a difference, and it’s particularly significant for retirees. Most people can expect that their income tax payments and sales tax payments will peak during their prime working years, and then fall during retirement. But property taxes are different – it’s obviously possible for your property to appreciate during your retirement, and in that case you can expect your property tax payments to rise, rather than fall.
So if you are on a fixed income in retirement, and you want to ensure that your tax bills remain manageable, then you need to pay particular attention to property taxes. California is actually a low-tax state for many people in this situation.
If most high cost of living states have aging populations, you might also suspect their young left for a lower cost of living. And whatever we might both suspect, the correlation between high service/high tax states - which are one and the same - and net population gain/loss speaks for itself.
The comment that made me comment was the one about Oklahoma… that no-one would want to retire there. That people retire there every day is simply a fact, just not that many from New York.
The problem with this example is that the Mets winter in Port St. Lucie, not the Sox. The displaced Bostonian would be in Fort Myers, which might be more expensive.
No shock to any of us that NY leads the list.
I love living here. But I’m not sure that we’ll be able to afford to retire here. Or, for that matter, that our kids will be able to afford to build their lives here.
This whole thread is an example of how most people like big government spending on things that they benefit from (e.g. Social Security and Medicare) but small government taxes.
Right. I’m actually fine with taxes that make society better for everyone, not just me. But I’m weird like that. I believe it’s part of being a civil society.
Another thing to look into is that many jurisdictions give a break to seniors on their property tax bill. It will have age restrictions, and likely income restrictions, but may be part of the equation. Where I live, there is a freeze on the property tax at age 65 if you meet certain income restrictions. If you do, you never have to apply for that freeze again.
Agree @garland. Colorado, which I mentioned as having low property taxes upthread, is terrible at school funding, roads and public transportation. I would gladly pay twice what I’m paying knowing I’m helping the state grow its infrastructure and making it a better place should my children decide to settle here permanently. Alas, in this purple state tax is as welcome as pox.