2018's Best & Worst Places to Retire

Posted: 11:10 AM, Aug 15, 2018
Updated: 2018-08-15 11:10:35-04
2018's Best & Worst Places to Retire

With only 17 percent of Americans reporting that they are “very confident” they will have enough money for retirement, the personal-finance website WalletHub today released its report on  2018’s Best & Worst Places to Retire []  as well as  accompanying videos [] .

To help Americans plan for a comfortable retirement without breaking the bank, WalletHub compared more than 180 U.S. cities across 46 key measures of affordability, quality of life, health care and availability of recreational activities. The data set ranges from cost of living to retired taxpayer-friendliness to share of the population aged 65 and older.

Best Cities to Retire   Worst Cities to Retire
1 Orlando, FL   173 Fresno, CA
2 Scottsdale, AZ   174 Modesto, CA
3 Tampa, FL   175 Jersey City, NJ
4 Denver, CO   176 Bakersfield, CA
5 Fort Lauderdale, FL   177 Providence, RI
6 Charleston, SC   178 Stockton, CA
7 Miami, FL   179 Baltimore, MD
8 Austin, TX   180 Warwick, RI
9 Cape Coral, FL   181 Bridgeport, CT
10 Tempe, AZ   182 Newark, NJ

Best vs. Worst

  • Scottsdale, Arizona, has the highest share of the population aged 65 and older, 22.4 percent, which is 3.3 times higher than in Fontana, California, the city with the lowest at 6.8 percent.
  • Laredo, Texas, has the lowest adjusted cost-of-living index for retirees, 76.51, which is 2.5 times lower than in San Francisco, the city with the highest at 192.09.
  • Columbia, Maryland, has the highest share of workers aged 65 and older, 26.86 percent, which is 2.9 times higher than in Hialeah, Florida, the city with the lowest at 9.31 percent.
  • St. Louis, Missouri has the most home health care facilities (per 100,000 residents), 45.25, which is 31 times more than in Fontana, California, the city with the fewest at 1.46.

To view the full report and your city’s rank, please visit: []