Florida Real Estate News – The best and worst places to retire
Here are the best (and worst) places to retire
As they approach retirement age, older Americans are becoming steadily more pessimistic about their economic prospects.
Where they choose to spend their golden years could make all the difference.
A little more than half of working-age households are at risk of being unable to maintain their current standard of living in retirement, according to the National Retirement Risk Index measurement from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
As a result, many workers say they are expecting to work past age 70, if they retire at all. Yet that doesn’t have to be the case for those willing to relocate, according to Jill Gonzalez, a senior analyst at WalletHub.
The personal finance site compared the retiree-friendliness of the country’s 150 largest cities using criteria such as the availability of home health-care facilities and recreational activities, including golf, museums and bingo and the price of in-home services and overall cost of living.
Here are the best and worst, according to WalletHub. (This is the full list.)
Best cities to retire
1. Orlando, Fla.
2. Tampa, Fla.
4. Scottsdale, Ariz.
6. Salt Lake City
9. Austin, Texas
10. Las Vegas
It’s no surprise that the top three cities are all in the Sunshine State — where there is no personal income tax — with Orlando in the No. 1 spot.
Meanwhile, at the very bottom were San Bernardino, California, Providence, Rhode Island, and Newark, New Jersey, in part because of taxes, higher cost of living and lesser quality of life for seniors.
Worst cities to retire
141. Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.
142. Fontana, Calif.
143. Modesto, Calif.
144. Stockton, Calif.
145. Fresno, Calif.
147. Worcester, Mass.
148. San Bernardino, Calif.
149. Providence, R.I.
150. Newark, N.J.