If you are planning for retirement, you should note that where you choose to live can have a massive impact on how far your Social Security benefits will go. A new report from the government confirms that a number of cities are draining retirees’ benefits quickly.
According to a recent study by LendingTree, using data from government agencies like the Social Security Administration, Tax Foundation, and Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are stark differences in how far benefits can stretch across different cities.
Why Where You Live Matters More Than Ever
Although Social Security was never designed to cover retirement costs in full, it is falling so short in many cities. The LendingTree report shows that Social Security income averages about $21,500 annually, while retirees average pretax expenses top $71,400. This shows that Social Security benefits cover just 30.1% of the expenses.
However, that percentage varies widely depending on location. In some cities, Social Security covers over 32% of expenses, but some are expensive, and the benefits barely cover 24%.
The Worst Cities for Retirees Relying on Social Security
San Francisco ranks as the most expensive city to retire in, with Social Security covering just 24.28% of retirees’ annual spending based on average yearly costs of $85,364 and benefits of only $20,726. Retirees in this area face a serious financial gap and they have to supplement their Social Security income to afford their expenses.
1. San Francisco, CA – 24.3%
2. Los Angeles, CA – 24.9%
3. Washington, D.C. – 24.9%
4. San Jose, CA – 24.4%
5. Oxnard, CA – 25.3%
6. San Diego, CA – 25.7%
7. Sacramento, CA – 26.4%
8. Riverside, CA – 26.6%
9. Stockton, CA – 26.7%
10. Miami, FL – 26.9%
This list shows that cities in California have the smallest share of retiree costs covered by Social Security.
The Best Cities for Stretching Social Security
On the other side, some cities allow a much more affordable retirement. McAllen, TX, tops the list, allowing Social Security to cover a generous 34.6% of average retirement expenses because of its lower housing and living costs.
1. McAllen, TX – 34.6%
2. Buffalo, NY – 33.1%
3. El Paso, TX – 32.9%
4. Syracuse, NY – 32.8%
5. Scranton, PA – 32.7%
6. Wichita, KS – 32.6%
7. Augusta, GA – 32.4%
8. Tucson, AZ – 32.3%
9. Little Rock, AR – 32.3%
10. Tulsa, OK – 32.3%
Most Retirees Will Need More Than Just Social Security to Get By
Experts warn that many Americans might be financially unprepared. “Most aren’t fortunate enough to have a seven-figure nest egg or a pension to lean on. Most people have tight budgets, limited expendable income, and low retirement account balances,” said Matt Schulz, LendingTree’s chief consumer finance analyst.
The reality check is that Social Security alone won’t be enough in many parts of the country, especially in high-cost urban areas. It is therefore crucial to make good financial plans by:
- Saving aggressively and early. Building savings early will enable you to avoid being so dependent on Social Security checks.
- Cutting non-essential spending. While living on a fixed income, it is necessary to reduce unnecessary costs and luxury purchases.
- Eliminating high-interest debt. You should negotiate lower rates or consolidate debt to ease the burden and avoid credit cards.
Conclusion
Since average Social Security checks are not meant to fully cover retirement costs, but only a third or less, the location you choose to retire can break or make your retirement plan. While cities like Buffalo, El Paso, and McAllen offer financial breathing room, cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles are expensive and risky for retirees depending on Social Security checks.
Before you retire, you should put into consideration the city you will live in during retirement and consider the cost-of-living data to see how far your benefits will go. Smart location choices are a factor that cannot be ignored in today’s economy because they can protect you from financial strain.