How much in savings do you need to retire in the following states

Interesting.

Hoping my fellow New Yorkers are financially prepared to retire – especially those without generous government provided pension checks. 64% of predicted retirees have but $10,000 in savings.

Interesting also that the top five most expensive states listed to retire in identify themselves as Progressive Democrats.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/reti...andhp#image=48

Hawaii
• Annual cost of living: $102,381.18
• Cost of living after using Social Security income: $86,075.34
• How much you need in savings to retire: $2,151,884

California
• Annual cost of living: $71,102.28
• Cost of living after using Social Security income: $54,796.44
• How much you need in savings to retire: $1,369,911

Oregon
• Annual cost of living: $69,678.20
• Cost of living after using Social Security income: $53,372.36
• How much you need in savings to retire: $1,334,309

New York
• Annual cost of living: $68,661.00
• Cost of living after using Social Security income: $52,355.16
• How much you need in savings to retire: $1,308,879

Massachusetts
• Annual cost of living: $66,270.58
• Cost of living after using Social Security income: $49,964.74
• How much you need in savings to retire: $1,249,119

Interesting that in those states Median Salaries are also in the top half of the country.

Hawaii: 80,212 #4

California: 75,277 #7

Oregon: 63,426 #20

New York: $67,844 #15

Mass: $79,835 #5. Mass is interesting because a lot of people who live in Mass work in Rhode Island (#18) or Connecticut (#6) or vice versa

Funny how the “Cost of living” is close the the New Supervisors salary. Fits right in line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff

Interesting that in those states Median Salaries are also in the top half of the country.

Hawaii: 80,212 #4

California: 75,277 #7

Oregon: 63,426 #20

New York: $67,844 #15

Mass: $79,835 #5. Mass is interesting because a lot of people who live in Mass work in Rhode Island (#18) or Connecticut (#6) or vice versa

---

Jeff, that is interesting in that it indicates that even the average working New Yorker is not keeping up with the cost of living in his own state. In fact, the stated amount is beyond what a number of households with more than one family member employed is earning.

But this thread is about retirees and where they could consider moving to manage living best on their Social Security receipts, pensions if they are fortunate to receive one, and amount of savings.

New York is losing population and would be losing a larger amount if some retirees had the resources to do so. They don’t. How some of them manage to cope is enigmatic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lanc

Funny how the “Cost of living” is close the the New Supervisors salary. Fits right in line.

---

Indeed, yet it does not fit in with his 'market value' and what other Supervisors in like-size municipalities and in services provided.

nd, as I wrote in another thread, there are at least 30 other town employees (union and non union) that earn wages above that of the Town Supervisor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

nd, as I wrote in another thread, there are at least 30 other town employees (union and non union) that earn wages above that of the Town Supervisor.

---

Point well taken Mr. C., but such perceived inequity is not limited to the Lancaster Supervisor or similar circumstances in other venues.

In education, I understand that in the public sector, teachers with the identical credentials and training in suburban school districts make far more than those serving in some big city districts such as Buffalo.

Speaking personally, I recall back in the '70s and '80s, a starting teacher in the public schools with a Master degree, made far less than much of the starting clerical staff.

Moreover, in the sector of private education during that same time period, a teacher holding the exact same credentials as its counterpart in the public sector, was paid far less, and received even fewer benefits and protections.

The true professional, or in the instance that you addressed, a dedicated citizen seeking to lift its community, celebrates its passion and commitment over its pocket book and ego, IMHO.

Just sayin'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark blazejewski

Point well taken Mr. C., but such perceived inequity is not limited to the Lancaster Supervisor or similar circumstances in other venues.

In education, I understand that in the public sector, teachers with the identical credentials and training in suburban school districts make far more than those serving in some big city districts such as Buffalo.

Speaking personally, I recall back in the '70s and '80s, a starting teacher in the public schools with a Master degree, made far less than much of the starting clerical staff.

Moreover, in the sector of private education during that same time period, a teacher holding the exact same credentials as its counterpart in the public sector, was paid far less, and received even fewer benefits and protections.

The true professional, or in the instance that you addressed, a dedicated citizen seeking to lift its community, celebrates its passion and commitment over its pocket book and ego, IMHO.

Just sayin'.

---

Supervisor Ruffino is constantly being taken to task for his rhetoric on why he believes he should have received a $5,000 stipend for acting as Budget Officer to offset what he believes to be a salary structure lacking in comparison to other town Supervisors.

The 2020 budget was approved before he took office and he knew what the position paid before and when the budget was approved. As a council member he never brought up his salary concerns during the budget hearings.

Regardless, his complaint was ill-founded in comparing Lancaster salary position to other towns. He should have looked at our town’s history and he would have discovered that his current $71,096 salary pales in comparison to that of the 2012 Giza administration salary – and why. In 2012, Supervisor Giza’s salary was $74,441 and he earned another $8,122 as Budget Officer for a total of $82,122. He was also provided with a town vehicle.

Giza was defeated by Fudoli. Fudoli ran on a promise to cut the Supervisor salary by 10%, eliminate the Budget Officer stipend and to use his own vehicle. Supervisor Fudoli did reduce his salary by 10% (from $74,441 to $66,907), did not take the Budget Officer stipend and used his own vehicle for town travel. That same schedule remained through his four years in office.

Coleman became Supervisor in 2017. Her salary increased to $68,337 in 2017, $69,704 in 2018 and $71,098 in 2019. She proposed a 2020 budget with no salary increase and no Budget Officer stipend. Coleman did not receive a stipend her first two years in office, proposed and received one in 2019 and removed it in the 2020 budget proposal.

The 2020 budget was approved. Ruffino tried to add the stipend back in and did not get the votes – and rightfully so, IMHO. However, he has the right to complain that the Supervisor’s salary does not reflect ‘market value’, but his reasoning is illogical.

We shall see what his 2021 proposed budget will bring, and what gets approved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

Supervisor Ruffino is constantly being taken to task for his rhetoric on why he believes he should have received a $5,000 stipend for acting as Budget Officer to offset what he believes to be a salary structure lacking in comparison to other town Supervisors.

The 2020 budget was approved before he took office and he knew what the position paid before and when the budget was approved. As a council member he never brought up his salary concerns during the budget hearings.

Regardless, his complaint was ill-founded in comparing Lancaster salary position to other towns. He should have looked at our town’s history and he would have discovered that his current $71,096 salary pales in comparison to that of the 2012 Giza administration salary – and why. In 2012, Supervisor Giza’s salary was $74,441 and he earned another $8,122 as Budget Officer for a total of $82,122. He was also provided with a town vehicle.

Giza was defeated by Fudoli. Fudoli ran on a promise to cut the Supervisor salary by 10%, eliminate the Budget Officer stipend and to use his own vehicle. Supervisor Fudoli did reduce his salary by 10% (from $74,441 to $66,907), did not take the Budget Officer stipend and used his own vehicle for town travel. That same schedule remained through his four years in office.

Coleman became Supervisor in 2017. Her salary increased to $68,337 in 2017, $69,704 in 2018 and $71,098 in 2019. She proposed a 2020 budget with no salary increase and no Budget Officer stipend. Coleman did not receive a stipend her first two years in office, proposed and received one in 2019 and removed it in the 2020 budget proposal.

The 2020 budget was approved. Ruffino tried to add the stipend back in and did not get the votes – and rightfully so, IMHO. However, he has the right to complain that the Supervisor’s salary does not reflect ‘market value’, but his reasoning is illogical.

We shall see what his 2021 proposed budget will bring, and what gets approved.

---

Also, in the 2012 budget, the Supervisor's salary without stipend was more than the Town clerk or Highway Superintendent's salary without stipends.
Not that that means anything. It just caught my eye. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

We shall see what his 2021 proposed budget will bring, and what gets approved.

---

Fair enough.

Ruffino should be able to make his case to the Council and let the Council members decide the merits of his arguments. Then the voters will judge the merits of the collective Ruffino-Town Council pleadings and decisions.

I wonder why Supervisor Coleman had a 1.5% salary increase for the supervisor position in her tentative budget
and then removed the increase in her final budget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorja

I wonder why Supervisor Coleman had a 1.5% salary increase for the supervisor position in her tentative budget
and then removed the increase in her final budget.

---

That is an interesting question Gorja.

I also have a question: Why didn't Ruffino raise his concerns about the inadequacy of Supervisor's salary within the budget amendment time limit and/or publicly during the 2019 campaign?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mark blazejewski

That is an interesting question Gorja.

I also have a question: Why didn't Ruffino raise his concerns about the inadequacy of Supervisor's salary within the budget amendment time limit and/or publicly during the 2019 campaign?

---

Quote:

---

Gorga wrote: I wonder why Supervisor Coleman had a 1.5% salary increase for the supervisor position in her tentative budget and then removed the increase in her final budget.

---

You respond with: ‘That is an interesting question Gorja’, and then ask a question as well. I am quite sure you both know the answers to each other’s questions.

In politics two axioms are a given; ‘Payback is a bitch’ and ‘To the victor go the spoils’.

Payback here in the form of removal of salary increase and stipend for a primary conducted in such deceitful, double-dealing manner where even Machiavelli would blush.

Council members Ruffino and Gaczewski both had ample opportunity to question the Supervisor’s budget line on the salary structure and stipend removal before budget approval. Neither did, which leads one to conclude they were satisfied with the proposal.

Ruffino wins, makes some changes people question and/or complain about, but they are in his jurisdiction to do so. ‘To the victor go the spoils’.

Ruffino sponsors a resolution to reinstate the stipend and fails to get it approved. That should have been the end of it. Move on, nothing to be gained. But he doesn’t and continues to whine; the same individual who ran on fiscal conservatism.

If you believed you got screwed Supervisor Ruffino, which I believe you did, move on as you have control over the 2021 budget. At the same time I question whether losing candidate Gaczewski would have created the same ****storm had she been elected.

I also question why Ruffino voiced no objections to Supervisor Fudoli (2013-16) cutting the Supervisor salary by 10%, removing the Budget Officer stipend and dispensing with use of a town provided vehicle. In Fudoli’s four years in office Ruffino sat quiet – even in the years he failed to show up to vote on the budget. Fudoli said he could do the job with less (and did), Ruffino wants more.

It’s time to move on and focus on the upcoming primary and November election to fill the vacant seat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec

You respond with: ‘That is an interesting question Gorja’, and then ask a question as well. I am quite sure you both know the answers to each other’s questions.

In politics two axioms are a given; ‘Payback is a bitch’ and ‘To the victor go the spoils’.

---

Ah, "Spot On!, " Mark said sheepishly.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
I am quite sure you both know the answers to each other’s questions.

---

Actually, after looking at the resolution to adopt the budget, I see the supervisor's salary wasn't the only one reduced

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...5d7750de_c.jpg