25 Best Small Towns To Retire Where $100K in Savings Will Last You the Longest

Retirement experts recommend a variety of ways to figure out how much you need saved for retirement, ranging from 10 times your pre-retirement earnings to several million dollars. It can be challenging to know the exact amount — and even harder to save it up.

Avoid This Retirement Savings Mistake That’s Costing Americans Up to $300K

5 Subtly Genius Moves All Wealthy People Make With Their Money

For people who don’t have a lot of savings, you’ll want to find the most affordable towns to plant yourself in your golden years. Small towns often add a strong sense of community that can help you connect to the things that matter most without money.

To find the 25 best small towns where $100,000 in savings lasts longest, GOBankingRates analyzed small towns across the country that have populations between 1,000 and 10,000 residents, gleaned additional data on rental costs and other expenditures and scored livability via AreaVibes. (See the full methodology at the end of this gallery.)

Deducting the average annual Social Security benefit ($22,344 as of February) from the average cost of living in each city, GOBankingRates also determined how long $100,000 in savings would last.

Read on to find out where $100,000 in savings will last you the longest. And see how far a $100,000 salary foes in 50 big cities.

• Total population: 5,922 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 5.99%
• Total cost of living per year: $36,374 

There’s a lot going for Tea, where the median household income is $99,153 per year and the livability score is 79. But you’ll get just seven years out of $100,000 in savings.

Pictured: Lead, South Dakota

• Total population: 1,945 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 15.22%
• Total cost of living per year: $36,311

In a town as small as Kemah, which sits on Galveston Bay, more than 15% of the population being 65 and over feels like even more. The median household income is $93,021 per year, and the livability score is 71. Your $100,000 in savings will be gone in 7.2 years, however.

Pictured: El Paso

• Total population: 8,667 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 10.44%
• Total cost of living per year: $36,301 

The median household income here is $74,830 per year, and the livability is very high, at 86. But your $100,000 in savings will last just 7.2 years.

Pictured: Rivertown, Kentucky

• Total population: 8,287 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 13.72%
• Total cost of living per year: $35,766

Rawlins has a lower percentage of seniors and a lower livability score of 68. Your $100,000 in savings will last about 7.5 years.

Pictured: Cody, Wyoming

• Total population: 7,763 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 21.09%
• Total cost of living per year: $35,170

Jersey Village is a suburb of Houston. With a higher percentage of seniors in Jersey Village and a median household income of $88,101 per year, it’s a solid place to live. However, $100,000 in savings will last not quite eight years.

Pictured: Houston

• Total population: 8,512 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 12.68%
• Total cost of living per year: $35,160 

Whitehouse, about 120 miles southeast of Dallas, has a solid median household income of nearly $73,000 per year and a livability score of 79. However, your $100,000 in savings will just under eight years.

Pictured: Dallas

• Total population: 5,272 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 6.41%
• Total cost of living per year: $34,158

In Central, the average median household income is quite low, at just under $46,000 per year. The livability score is only 61 and it has an extremely low percentage of seniors. Your $100,000 in savings will last about 8.5 years here.

Pictured: Fort Mill, South Carolina

• Total population: 6,174 
• Percent of the population 65 and over:15.18%
• Total cost of living per year: $33,808

Lindale is about 90 miles east of Dallas, just north of Tyler. In Lindale, the median household income is on the higher end, at $79,557 per year, and it has a solid livability score of 75. It will take 8.7 years to go through $100,000 in savings.

Pictured: Dallas

• Total population: 9,565 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 18.24%
• Total cost of living per year: $33,739 

Girard is about 70 miles southeast of Cleveland, near the Pennsylvania border. The median household income in Girard is on the lower end of these cities, at just over $43,500 per year, with a modest livability of 65, as well. Your $100,000 in savings will last close to nine years.

Pictured: Oxford, Ohio

• Total population: 8,205 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 8.48%
• Total cost of living per year: $33,722

In Maplewood, a suburb of St. Louis, the median household income is only about $59,000 per year, but the livability is very high, at 86. You’ll get about nine years out of $100,000 in savings.

Pictured: St. Louis

• Total population: 6,734 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 24.84%
• Total cost of living per year: $33,659

Oakmont is a suburb of Pittsburgh. The median household income in Oakmont is on the higher side, at $82,012 per year. The livability is also quite high, at 81. You can live on $100,000 for nearly nine years.

Pictured: York, Pennsylvania

• Total population: 9,972 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 18.55%
• Total cost of living per year: $33,255 

Expect to get over nine years out of $100,000 in savings in Willoughby Hills, a suburb of Cleveland. The livability score is 71.

Pictured: Dayton, Ohio

• Total population: 9,138 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 21.89%
• Total cost of living per year: $33,224 

Here, the average monthly expenditures are just over $2,768 per month, and the median household income is almost $63,000. You’ll get nine years out of $100,000 savings.

Pictured: Union Springs, Alabama

• Total population: 7,417 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 16.83%
• Total cost of living per year: $32,477

Alamo Heights, a suburb of San Antonio, has the highest median income on this list, by a mile, at nearly $150,000 per year. Your $100,000 savings will last 10 years, and people here can probably afford to save more.

Pictured: San Antonio, Texas

• Total population: 8,067 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 20.54%
• Total cost of living per year: $32,400

With a sizable percentage of the population aged 65 and over and a strong livability score of 79, you’ll at least enjoy the 10 years you live on your $100,000 in Carnegie.

• Total population: 2,793 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 10.99%
• Total cost of living per year: $32,113

The livability is good (73) in the quirkily named Knob Noster, which is between St. Louis and Kansas City, and your $100,000 will last about 10 years.

Pictured: Columbia, Missouri

• Total population: 8,184 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 41.70%
• Total cost of living per year: $32,071

You’ll get over 10 years out of $100,000 in Laughlin, and you’ll be in good company. Laughlin has the highest percentage of seniors on this list, at almost 42% of the population.

• Total population: 5,372 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 19.38%
• Total cost of living per year: $31,437 

Waynesville has a decent percentage of seniors, at close to 20% of the population, though its livability score isn’t super high, at 61. You’ll get 11 years out of $100,000 in savings here.

Pictured: Sedalia, Missouri

• Total population: 9,101 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 9.15%
• Total cost of living per year: $31,380 

Benton Harbor, which sits on Lake Michigan, does not have a great livability score, just 55, which probably explains its very low percentage of seniors. Your $100,000 would last about 11 years here.

Pictured: Ann Arbor, Michigan

• Total population: 7,895 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 3.20%
• Total cost of living per year: $30,912

Oak Grove has a low number of seniors and one of the lowest livability scores on the list, at 58. Maybe after the 12 years you’ll get out of $100,000, you might consider moving somewhere else.

Pictured: Frankfurt, Kentucky

• Total population: 7,983 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 18.44%
• Total cost of living per year: $30,404

Wahpeton is right on the Minnesota border and just 200 miles from Indianapolis. With a monthly average expenditure of over $2,500, you can expect to get over 12 years out of $100,000. Livability here is not good, however, at just 64.

Pictured: North Dakota Enchanted Highway

• Total population: 7,915 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 8.39%
• Total cost of living per year: $30,382

It will take you 12.4 years to spend down $100,000 in Big Rapids, which is about an hour north of Grand Rapids by car. But you’ll enjoy doing it, with a 76 livability score.

Pictured: Holland, Michigan

• Total population: 3,377 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 15.19%
• Total cost of living per year: $29,231

With a median household income of just over 59,000, you’ll have about 14.5 years to live on $100,000 in this Pittsburgh suburb. The livability score in Millvale is a stunning 84.

Pictured: Pittsburgh

• Total population: 5,825 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 32.34%
• Total cost of living per year: $29,198

With total monthly expenditures of over $2,300, but a higher median household income of nearly $86,000, your $100,000 will last 14.6 years in Windcrest, a suburb of San Antonio.

Pictured: San Antonio, Texas

• Total population: 6,937 
• Percent of the population 65 and over: 14.37%
• Total cost of living per year: $27,881

Ambridge, a suburb of Pittsburgh, takes the No. 1 spot on this list as you could live here on $100,000 savings for 18 years. The median household income is $46,059, but it has a high livability score of 76.

Pictured: Pittsburgh

Methodology: For this study, GOBankingRates analyzed small towns across the country to find the best places to retire with $100,000 in savings. First GOBankingRates limited small towns to places that have [1] a population quantity between 1,000 and 10,000 residents, as sourced from the U.S. Census American Community Survey. For each city on the list, the [2] average rental cost was found, as sourced from Zillow Observed Rental Index. For all remaining cities on the list, the cost-of-living index was found for multiple expenditures, including [3] grocery cost-of-living index, [4] healthcare cost-of-living index, [5] utilities cost-of-living index, [6] transportation cost-of-living index, [7] miscellaneous cost-of-living index, all sourced from Sperling’s BestPlaces. Using the [8] national average expenditure costs for residents aged 65 and over, as sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Expenditure Survey, and combining the average expenditure costs with the average rental cost gives the monthly and annual total cost of living. The average Social Security benefit was sourced from the Social Security Administration’s Monthly Statistical Snapshot. Using the annual cost of living, the Social Security income and assuming $100,000 in savings, a yearly drawdown was calculated. The yearly drawdown was sorted to show the places that someone with $100,000 in savings can live the longest. For the remaining places, the livability index was sourced from AreaVibes as supplemental information. All data was collected on and is up to date as of March 13, 2024.