It would be very difficult to live solely on Social Security anywhere in the USA. Please note that SS was not designed to be the sole source of income for retired people. People have always talked about the "3 legged stool" of retirement.

The 3-Legged Stool Metaphor
1. Social Security
2. Pensions
3. Personal savings

This is from the SS website.

Social Security was never meant to be the only source of income for people when they retire. Social Security replaces a percentage of a worker’s pre-retirement income based on your lifetime earnings. If you start benefits in 2025 at your “full retirement age” (see our “Full retirement age” section), this percentage ranges from as much as 79% for very low earners, to about 43% for medium earners, to about 28% for maximum earners. I

Most financial advisers say you will need about 70% to 80% of pre-retirement income — including your Social Security benefits, investments, and personal savings — to live comfortably in retirement.

I have been surprised at how little social security pays and how expensive Medicare is. I thought that Medicare would free (people are always talking about free healthcare for all) since I paid into it for more than 50 years. I was wrong about that!!

I don't know where on the SSA website you read that, but here's what I saw - and a link to the page and location on that link:

Social Security History

The above is somewhat near the top of the page, under "The Company Pension."

The above is around the half-way mark on that page.

The tl;dr (too late, didn't read) version: Social Security WAS ABSOLUTELY designed as a pension/retirement for retired workers, many of whom had no pension plan at all from their jobs, and didn't earn enough to "save for retirement" during the Depression and shortly thereafter. That is exactly precisely WHY it was created.

Too many variables. Almost anything is possible if you're very cheap/frugal.

I see a wide range of spending even by people that live in nearly identical homes in my neighborhood.

Some are driving 15+ year vehicles and appear to rarely leave the house except for groceries. Zero landcape upgrades to their home including not adding gutters.

Others I see with a different vehicle or golf cart every year almost and they're going out for a meal almost nightly. The same people have what seems like a revolving door of contractors starting on a new upgrade or landscape project on their house every few months. Some people here seem to just love spending money and hopefully it's because they can afford it.

I still have to pay taxes on SS.

You wouldn't if your only income was SS.

Social Security is taxable income, just like most every other kind of income. Why shouldn't it be?

Since the supposition is "Social Security alone", why answers including pension, investments etc? Answer would depend on individual or couple total Social Security income.

An anonymous opinion with ambiguous conditions. Almost like someone throwing a fox in the henhouse to see how alert the flock is today.

Maybe someday you will see a question regarding moving to The Villages to see if they would fit in with their Capybara. Oh! That already happened.

Not exactly. If your income is low enough, none of it is taxed. At most, 85% is taxed.

That’s a tough question to answer, if you can live on social security. Right now for 2025 max is $4025 if you work till max retirement date, more if you wait till age 70. Average social security is $2000. Depends if you have mortgage, car payment, etc. way to many variables to say if you can live on social security

Here is a slight tangent to the topic.

We purchased a CYV late last year that is walking distance from LSL to use as a rental property. It is a major fixer-upper. The home was owned by the estate of a widower. The former owner was very likely mainly living on SSI because the house had a reverse mortgage on it and was way under water. Negotiation of the purchase was very difficult because the trustee and the bank did not want to take a haircut on the sale of the property.

We were told by the realtor (who may or may not know that they are talking about) that this is common in the villages and houses languish on the market because a bank and/or estate would rather sit on them than take a loss.

The relevance to the topic at hand is....for villager living on social security and whose main asset is their house, are reverse mortgages common? If so, that is one way that villagers living on SSI could make ends meet. Although it seems like a very painful way.

This is the link where I read it. Page 5.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10024.pdf

My Dad's SS went from $364 per to $205 per month in January. His Civil Service retirement went from $1,265 to $1,315. He lost $109 and his Medicare went up. What is with this?

I think the gov isn't fair to him. If it wasn't for me he would be in bad shape.

The are a lot of rules with Social Security. Why did his Social Security decrease? If you don’t know, you might want to ask.

[QUOTE=Guzzel;2406366]Did anyone read the Letter to the Editor piece in the Village Nws titled, "You must have more than Social Security income to afford The Villages’ lifestyle".

The author states, "You cannot afford The Villages without having Social Security, investments and pensions or a combination."

Obviously everyone's financial situation is different and SS payments can vary greatly, but wanted to get other perspectives.

Guzzel[/QUOTEz]

Hardly, maybe if food stamps increased.

If someone is living just off SS, prior to moving to TV, then it’s not much difference in TV. Except for amenities fees, one would still need wifi, car (or not) insurance, a dwelling, heat, air, food.

For many free activities saves money, plus taxes for many are far less. So money in the bank. I know some who choose their lifestyle, with just SS, and investing pension, so when time come spouse and or children will have a tidy sum.

We traveled our whole life, for a living, seeing the world in younger age. Some have second homes to travel and enjoy anytime they please. Have to say we enjoyed Europe in our younger days, and have family to visit in multiple countries, when we chose. Now we mostly stick to vaca homes, two hour flights or less with a different view, culture, and lifestyle

I think you're forgetting about pest control, termite contracts, lawn mowing and maintenance services, the extra bond charges on your tax bill at the end of the year along with the amenity fees that you mentioned, which keep rising. I would not plan to live in The Villages with only SS benefits in retirement, there are many less expensive options.

Nope we do our own pest (Sunday all natural 4 applications $75) we also mow our own because let’s face it’s a better job than any company (electric mower 4 years old paid for itself 5 times over)

Not all houses have a bond, I didn’t say plan on just SS, but some live on SS and invest their other income. 2007 was the first time we came to TV. Very well versed in all things to run a household including, 4 types of homes in TV, and the exact budget for each

If one needs to be concerned about amenities rising, I don’t think that is the only problem, one should be concerned about. Amenity is not the only cost that has risen since 2007 in TV.

At some point, you will no longer be capable of mowing your own lawn. But the lawn will still require mowing. You'll have to pay someone to do it. If your social security doesn't rise enough to cover the increase in your health insurance, AND general inflation on goods and services, AND the increase in amenity fees, AND the increase in taxes - then you'll be hurting.

Social security is considered a fixed income, even though it goes up a few percentage points every year or two. Your costs for living, generally go up more than a few percentage points every year or two.

Eventually, your fixed income will cease to be enough to support your costs for living. If one of you outlives the other, you'll end up with less to live on. Even pensions don't transfer 100% to a spouse, it's always a reduced amount. If you're struggling now, good luck affording it later.

My parents live in Tenn.. on social security alone. home is paid for.
I think collecting SS for both makes a huge difference, it would tough it were only 1...

Exactly, if one has to worry about living on SS and amenities rising, the bond on the tax bill rising, price of groceries which appear to be higher and I'm not talking about the house bond, and every other expense, The Villages isn't for them. Why live here with such limited income when they can choose another location which makes their retirement so much more enjoyable.

I get that you are well-heeled and planned well with a good income but picture living here with only $25,000-$35,000 before taxes in your pocket a year with no additional assets other than able to purchase a low end home here and a vehicle. It's pretty skimpy living and the cost of living in The Villages is not cheap as some would have you believe.

Social Security COLAs have matched or exceeded inflation (cost of living) over the past ten years or so (can't remember exactly how far back I looked). Yes, you can find examples of items that have increased more but if you're honest you can find examples that have increased less. If one is living solely on SS then hopefully they will choose wisely.

What bond on your taxes is not the house bond?

Property taxes have generally been steady or decreasing over the last five years. On the other hand, school taxes have more than covered that in their increases.

The bond on the home will eventually be paid off.

It makes sense to ask why someone would want to live here if their income was that limited. Who knows, someone who is doing it might have a good answer to that.

Maintenance bond.

Ah, okay. But for accuracy, that is a yearly fee and not a bond payment. Little difference, still money out of your pocket, but a fee amount is easier to change than a bond payment and a bond payment will eventually come to an end.

My post was answering the OP, can you live in TV on just SS, and my answer was if one is living on SS elsewhere, TV shouldn’t be much difference in TV.

Between properties in TV and our homes up north, I can still bank large % of income every month. No pensions, All our retirement investments were self contributions. So spouse dies still good. My health care cost is Medicare B, my second coverage is free to me, I have zero out of pocket for anything. So no worries there. Home care will eventually be covered if needed

Lawn, considering it’s 21 minutes to mow, edge, and occasional weed, our lawn. We do have family that has 13 crew landscaping company, but I choose not to have free lawn care, but free landscaping is always an option.

Some actually plan well for retirement, and don’t sit and worry on a daily basis is cost goes up. Just make some changes all is good

"According to current information, Social Security COLAs (Cost-of-Living Adjustments) have not fully kept pace with the actual inflation that seniors are facing, with many experts stating that the recent 2.5% increase for 2025 is below the inflation rate experienced by older adults, particularly in areas like healthcare and housing costs; meaning seniors are still struggling to maintain their purchasing power."

As far as I'm concerned, SS Cola's are based on only a few of the expenses and don't even touch basic expenses which have escalated.

There are experts and there is data. As I mentioned above, some things exceeded inflation and others not.

It’s probably the case that the current housing market is not good for someone looking to buy in their SS income alone. Okay, that person will have a problem. On the other hand, those already in their home are not affected by increasing home prices.

Or sold their home elsewhere and pay cash in TV, or take out mortgage and pay down large % after 30 days and still stay with SS budget. Lots of homes available in TV, should be one available to stay in budget. Then again it’s a hypothetical post, no mention of amount of SS

If your SS increase has covered all your living expenses caused by the ballooning inflation recently, you are one in a million.

We haven't even touched costs associated with the home maintenance such as roof needing replacement, power washing, painting if stucco, air conditioning, heat pump... there is always something needing attention. If the OP is receiving the SS max benefit of $61,296. a year, (max benefit to date), and has the funds to buy a home outright, they may be able to squeeze by.

Or like some move to a newer home every 8-10 years, no worries on AC,roof,HVAC, power wash only for vinyl, paint stucco more than 10 years unless you CMD on color. Didn’t the hypothetical person live elsewhere with maintenance and all the things you posted.
Why all the gloom on a hypothetical post “can you live on SS in TV” just because you can’t doesn’t mean others aren’t better at handling lifestyle. My dad grew up as a young child during the depression. Once he retired, they lived off just His SS all other income put away eventually for their kids.
They traveled, ate out, updated home as needed, mowed his lawn until 93, lavished their grandchildren with too much stuff. Their home up north cost far more in taxes, maintenance, snow removal, heat, air, then home in TV. He said TV cost was like winning the lottery every year.

Social Security was never intended as any more than a helping hand for retirees.
Social Security is indexed to inflation, but that adjustment is based on a lie.
John Williams documents the actual inflation rate at shadowstats.com
That means it may be affordable today but not 10 years from now.

Ocala National Forest is where you can live on just SS. Many do it there.

If one can afford a $30,000. bond payment a year, house jumping is a great idea. Ahem...

My Dad and Mom could probably have outshone your Dad, lol, if you want to talk about thriftiness, ambition, common sense and financial security. Thankfully, those talents were passed down to their children.

Both you and I know very few people are that adept at managing their finances and life and if this person is down to living on their SS benefits, they missed the financial boat somehow. They're asking for advice for their circumstances and I believe that lecturing someone how to suddenly become capable and proficient at living on very little is a waste of good breath.:mornincoffee:

Who is paying $30,000/year for a bond payment? It is typically more like $1,500/year.

Who is asking for advice? The OP asked for opinions on whether it is possible. The numbers make it look like it is possible. Desirable? Maybe not, but possible.

They were asking for advice as to whether they could live here on SS benefits alone. Semantics.

Some are paying on a $30,000. bond every year. Again semantics. With your breakout of $1500. once a year doesn't make the budge look any better. Squeaking by isn't fun, in fact, it could probably affect their health if things get too tight.

Some are higher than that. I just looked at a new bond in district 15 & the total bond is almost $51,000. the yearly payment is $3,357. This was randomly selected. There may be higher & probably lower ones in this same area..

TV is a middle income community. It’s nothing special. Old people move here because it’s too cold up North for them during the winter months. And, quite frankly, they can’t afford to live in the Northern states. I am one of those older people, and I live here down here from early January through early March. I rent my CYV the rest of the year, while I stay “up North “ , my real home

OP post is still “can you live on just SS”, and yes one could, my guess is some wouldn’t describe their life as squeaking by. But living within their budget, just like they did prior to moving to TV. We don’t eat out multiple times a a month, because food in the bubble is just mediocre, and can be made better at home. I find many 80yo plus in my parents age are happy with their lifestyle even if those think they live with less than others.

Living with less is far different than squeaking by. I wouldn't want my parents living a mean existence in their 80's and activities for most have greatly declined by the time they're in their eighties. That doesn't make your choice wrong, we just have different goals for the end of life living.

I personally think most elderly living in mixed age society think and do better. Could it be they are sharper being exposed to younger minds and experiences?

I see those aged 80+ being much more active here than where I lived in NY or MD. Could be because of the higher numbers here (more to notice) or could be because of the activities here.

And still, the original question was whether one could live here on SS.
- It was not whether I would need to
- It was not whether I would want to
- It was not whether someone could live better somewhere else
- It was not whether someone could buy the largest house in the newest enclave with the highest bond
- It was not a lot of things that have been argued in this thread

The question was whether one could live here on SS.