A question borne out of simple curiosity. If you had say $300,000 to last the rest of your life and could choose to live anywhere in the world, where would that be? As a couple or by yourself.
I appreciate age is a factor which is why I suggest its a retirement idea but all thoughts welcomed.
I am where I want to be - in fact, we moved to southern Maryland with the idea that we’d retire here, and that’s still the plan. It helped that we both got jobs in the area.
This county is still largely rural, so not too congested. We keep our sailboat in the adjacent county for easy access to the Chesapeake Bay. We’ve been fixing up our house to make it just as we want it. Honestly, I can’t think of any place else I’d rather live.
I have $300,000 and I don’t consider it enough to retire on. I’d like to go somewhere warm, though. Maybe Malaysia? Someone on this board was saying good things about expatriate communities in Malaysia.
Is it possible to retire to California? WE could not afford to live in a coastal town-but what about an are near Napa (like the Alexander valley)? It looks nice and rural-Healdsburg looked like a nice town.
I’d like to work as a hospitality guy at a vineyard tasting room!
Are those 300K supposed to last 55 years or is it every year? Because even if I retired to my house in the Pyrenees (which is the plan), there is no way 300K will last me 55 years… if I retire to my house, you can take out one zero, adjust for yearly inflation, and I’ll still be saving.
If I had $300,000 more than I had now, I could retire, and would – to Ithaca, NY. Great combination of walkability and natural beauty. The money would go straight into buying a nice house, and then the savings I already have would suffice for my every day expenses until I could draw Social Security.
We passed through a town in Washington on the Sound last year that looked like just where I’d like to retire to. Washington’s a no-state-income-tax state, right? That would make a big difference to folks on a fixed income. I don’t know how the colder, wetter weather would feel to old bones, but California’s an expensive state to live in.
We’d like to retire in British Columbia or Alaska or maybe Finland, and I don’t think $300K is going to do it in any of those places. I guess we’d just use the money to pay off our mortgage and buy an RV so we could travel a bit and stay on our own property here in MN.
Very highly yuppified there. There are plenty of coastal towns that are cheaper than Healdsburg. The Wine Country in general is very expensive to live in, unless you get out to the remoter areas (where there isn’t wine, just cattle ranches). Vineyards are dependent on sucking down ancient aquifers, plus they ruin rural communities everywhere they sprout in California. I hate them.
I’d like to move to the Willamette Valley in Oregon, because you can buy a medium sized farm there for about half of the price of a suburban house in a subdivision, here. People are nicer and the pace is slower than here in CA. Plus it rains more.
This would be my answer as well. I also think it would be great to live 6 months here, a year there, etc. E.g. I would love to spend a whole year in NYC, then be able to move on. Or maybe something like Endless Winter.
For those that would prefer to stay put, why buy a home? Wouldn’t the money last longer if you just rented?