[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by Hplaw

Your reference of "trailer park section" is offensive. The homes there are almost all well maintained landscaped. There are more and more new stick built homes going up. We have rented in the "historic area" and currently in the Sumpter Landing Area. I find many residents look down on you if you have property in the historic area. Another consideration for moving to The Villages.....the majority of people are kind and friendly (as anywhere). But, sad that where you choose to live becomes a snub by many. Are we still in High School?

"Historic Section/Area" is the greatest euphemism in the history of marketing.

Clio Awards Hall of Fame material.

Back in the 50's-60's, if you had a semi-home with wheels on it, it was called a "trailer".

In 1976, HUD changed the name from "trailer" to "mobile home".

A place where a lot of trailers/mobile homes were parked, was called a trailer park or mobile home park.

In the 1960's a guy named Harold Schwartz bought a mobile home park in central Florida and called it Orange Blossom Gardens.

In 1983, a smart visionary named H. Gary Morse took over Schwartz's business and decided if you owned a mobile home park in certain parts of Florida, you could call it a "Historic Area" and people might buy into it and overlook the obvious. Genius. Pure genius.

[Craig Vernon]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Is TV the best place to retire with little to no savings?

The best place with little or no savings? No. But it depends on your social security or pension.

Check this out. However, I am not sure how reliable they are. It says that to live comfortably, it recommends $77,400 for a family and $46,800 for a single person. If you don't have a mortgage, that seems high.

The Villages, FL Cost of Living

This is a cost of living calculator that compares the cost of living in the Villages to other places in the country.

2024 Cost of Living Calculator - Compare Cost of Living by City & State

This calculator was interesting, and I think pretty accurate. It gave a conclusion that TV is about 8% more expensive than where I live in Ohio which is pretty accurate, less taxes, more food and housing costs. Thanks...

[Craig Vernon]

Originally Posted by vintageogauge

One thing for sure is you won't shop at Publix.

You got that right...lol

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by dhdallas

I found this article on the GOBankingRates website:

GoBankingRates created a list of the best and worst destinations for retirement when you have no savings. They analyzed the 100 largest cities in the U.S. with a large population of adults ages 65 and older. These cities were then ranked based on the following factors:

• Average 2023 home value and property tax, sourced from Zillow
• Whether the state taxes Social Security benefits, sourced from the AARP
• Annual homemaker services costs
• Annual home health aide costs
• Annual grocery costs
• Annual healthcare costs
• Annual utilities cost
• Annual transportation costs
• Annual necessity costs

After compiling all the data, the team named Foley, Alabama, the best place to retire for those with little to no savings. Joining Foley on the top 10 list is Mountain Home, Arkansas, in the second-place spot, followed by Hot Springs Village, Arkansas, in third, The Villages, Florida, in fourth, and Bella Vista, Arkansas, at No. 5. Rounding out the top 10 is Pinehurst, North Carolina; Green Valley, Arizona; North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina; Fredericksburg, Texas; and Punta Gorda, Florida.

Best Places To Retire If You Have No Savings | GOBankingRates

I find the villages over Bella vista weird, everything in Arkansas cheaper. Food, taxes, property even gas and electric.

[VApeople]

Originally Posted by Hplaw

Your reference of "trailer park section" is offensive.

I don't find the reference to a "trailer park section" offensive at all.

I was raised in a trailer park on San Carlos Island (part of Fort Myers Beach) in the 1950's and I thought it was wonderful. I had a lot of freedom to ride my bike everywhere, even through the 'Arch' and across the 'Swing Bridge' going to the Elementary School in the morning. My parents would usually go fishing during the day and we often had fresh fish (sheepshead or grouper) for dinner.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I'm reading responses that don't relate to the "question."

The topic: Best place to retire with little-to-no savings.

The topic is NOT: Best place to retire with little-to-no income.

The Villages is affordable to us, even though we have little-to-no savings. It's affordable to us because we were able to net a profit from the sale of our house up north above and beyond what we still owed on our mortgage. Combined with a personal loan from a family member for a year, we were able to buy our house in The Villages and move down. A year later, we were debt-free.

We still have little-to-no savings, but we both have our social security checks and hubby has a modest pension. We're able to pay all our bills, our credit card balances are low and we pay them in full every month, we can afford to dine out and enjoy our country club and pool membership dues every year.

Because our income is modest and we're still both on ACA health insurance, our premium is low. But if I end up needing hip replacement surgery this year it'll set me back $9000, because that's the out-of-pocket max for the insurance.

We can pay that, but then we'd need to scramble to pad our savings again so we can handle another emergency or expensive need.

So yes. You absolutely can live here with little-to-no savings. But you need a bit more than that in income.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

"Historic Section/Area" is the greatest euphemism in the history of marketing.

Clio Awards Hall of Fame material.

Back in the 50's-60's, if you had a semi-home with wheels on it, it was called a "trailer".

In 1976, HUD changed the name from "trailer" to "mobile home".

A place where a lot of trailers/mobile homes were parked, was called a trailer park or mobile home park.

In the 1960's a guy named Harold Schwartz bought a mobile home park in central Florida and called it Orange Blossom Gardens.

In 1983, a smart visionary named H. Gary Morse took over Schwartz's business and decided if you owned a mobile home park in certain parts of Florida, you could call it a "Historic Area" and people might buy into it and overlook the obvious. Genius. Pure genius.

The dwellings were known as "mobile homes" and NOT "trailers" prior to 1976. In 1976, there was new code for the standards of building the things, and their name was changed to "manufactured homes."

Trailer homes are an entirely different thing. Trailer homes were the things that "trailed" behind the pick-up truck. You brought it to a site and unhitched it, and there it'd be. A mobile home was brought in on a flatbed, not trailing behind it. Trailer homes, which became popular in the 1920's, fell out of favor after the advent of mobile homes.

The term "trailer park" is now usually considered a pejorative, and its residents are referred to as "trailer trash."

The Villages started as a mobile home park, not a trailer park - which would be more like a long-term or seasonal campground than a residential neighborhood.

The "historic section" is physically separated from the rest of The Villages, isolated on the other side of 441. And unlike the southern part of The Villages, which is separated from the rest of The Villages by 44 and Florida Turnpike, the Historic Section won't ever be expanded.
That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your interests. For me, it's a great thing. There's no thru-traffic, with the exception of golf carts that want to get to Walmart or BJ's.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I'm reading responses that don't relate to the "question."

The topic: Best place to retire with little-to-no savings.

The topic is NOT: Best place to retire with little-to-no income.

The Villages is affordable to us, even though we have little-to-no savings. It's affordable to us because we were able to net a profit from the sale of our house up north above and beyond what we still owed on our mortgage. Combined with a personal loan from a family member for a year, we were able to buy our house in The Villages and move down. A year later, we were debt-free.

We still have little-to-no savings, but we both have our social security checks and hubby has a modest pension. We're able to pay all our bills, our credit card balances are low and we pay them in full every month, we can afford to dine out and enjoy our country club and pool membership dues every year.

Because our income is modest and we're still both on ACA health insurance, our premium is low. But if I end up needing hip replacement surgery this year it'll set me back $9000, because that's the out-of-pocket max for the insurance.

We can pay that, but then we'd need to scramble to pad our savings again so we can handle another emergency or expensive need.

So yes. You absolutely can live here with little-to-no savings. But you need a bit more than that in income.

Excellent response.
I have no pension. DW and I have decent SS income and a nice chunk of savings, and live off the SS and investment returns on savings.
I have relatives with almost no savings, but have "his and her" teacher's pensions. They live very nicely. Very nicely, indeed.

So, as you illustrate, it isn't about savings or no savings, it's about cash flow, and there are more than a few ways to accomplish that.

It's fairly easy to calculate COL in TV, and it's simple math to figure out what one can afford today. Less simple is calculating how inflation and health issues will affect today's numbers, but that's another topic altogether.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Excellent response.
I have no pension. DW and I have decent SS income and a nice chunk of savings, and live off the SS and investment returns on savings.
I have relatives with almost no savings, but have "his and her" teacher's pensions. They live very nicely. Very nicely, indeed.

So, as you illustrate, it isn't about savings or no savings, it's about cash flow, and there are more than a few ways to accomplish that.

It's fairly easy to calculate COL in TV, and it's simple math to figure out what one can afford today. Less simple is calculating how inflation and health issues will affect today's numbers, but that's another topic altogether.

Yes, it is all about cash flow. Some call that a savings, some call that investment and yet others call it a pension. The “bottom line” is nomenclature usage.

The poll just happens to call it a savings.

[Laker14]

Having watched my parents' retirement years come and go, I realized that retirement is not one single phase of life, but a series of phases, depending upon age and health.

They retired at 65, and were very healthy. They played golf a lot. My dad was very active socially.
Naturally as years went by they slowed down. Mom died at 75, Dad lived another 11 years, and his retirement needs transitioned from "Active Senior Lifestyle" to quieter, more socially interactive living. He died just before he was about to require some degree of assistance to get him through his day.

I'm convinced that TV is a great place for the first two phases; the physically active phase and the socially active phase. The jury is out, as far as I am concerned, on how well it will serve us if we survive into the "assistance needed" phase, and exactly when we'll hit that wall is at this point, unknown.

Questions about how affordable TV is would be best addressed with consideration for the idea that as much as we might like the idea of it being our "forever" home, that might not be practical, and how we'll afford the exit plan should be given some thought.