The Most Expensive Cities for Singles -- and the Cheapest

The Most Expensive Cities for Singles -- and the Cheapest

San Francisco, CA
Wikimedia Commons
By Suelain Moy

Looking for love in all the pricey places? Check out these lists of the most and least expensive cities for singles before you go on that next date or plan your next move. Looking good doesn’t come cheap, and the price of a decent wardrobe and a gym membership add ups before you even step out the door.

To determine which cities were the least and most affordable for singles, GoBankingRates examined 89 cities and rated them according to four expense categories -- clothing, dates, gym memberships and rent -- using data from Numbeo.com. “Singles are more likely to exercise, and to have a gym membership,” says Elyssa Kirkham, a finance writer for GoBankingRates. “They’re more likely to rent than own a home, and spend more money on dates and clothing.”

Related: Hot New Dating Criteria: What’s Your Credit Score?

San Francisco is the most expensive city for singles, especially when it comes to rent. Rent is 30 percent more expensive in San Francisco than it is in Honolulu. The cost of a date here is $147, compared with the median cost of $109. California just might be the most expensive state to date in, claiming seven of the top 15 spots: San Francisco, Fremont, Glendale, Irvine, Los Angeles, San Diego and Oakland.

The second most expensive city? New York City, which boasts the most expensive gym membership at $90 per month. Clothing costs here are the second-highest in the nation -- bad news for all the Carrie Bradshaws out there. And date night will set you back $145.

The most expensive date night in the country is in Washington, D.C., which came in third overall. Date night in our nation’s capital costs $166 for dinner, a bottle of wine, two movie tickets and a 10-mile taxi ride. Compare that to Chattanooga, Tennessee, which had the cheapest date night at $78.

Looking for more bang for your buck? Move to Reno, Nevada. Rent here is just 86 cents per square foot, and a night out averages $97.30. Keep in mind, though, that “the Biggest Little City in the World” was once known as the divorce capital of the world, so dating there may offer less promise than other locales.

Related: The Bad News About All the Singles in America

Most Expensive Cities for Singles

  1. San Francisco
  2. New York
  3. Washington, D.C.
  4. Honolulu
  5. Boston
  6. Fremont, California
  7. Glendale, California
  8. Anchorage, Alaska
  9. Miami
  10. Seattle
  11. Irvine, California
  12. Los Angeles
  13. San Diego
  14. Oakland, California
  15. Madison, Wisconsin

Related: Marriage?? Young Americans Aren’t Even Shacking Up

15 Cheapest Cities for Singles

  1. Reno, Nevada
  2. Tucson, Arizona
  3. Grand Rapids, Michigan
  4. Tacoma, Washington
  5. Indianapolis
  6. Mesa, Arizona
  7. Little Rock, Arkansas
  8. Albuquerque, New Mexico
  9. Huntsville, Alabama
  10. Memphis, Tennessee
  11. St. Louis, Missouri
  12. Jackson, Mississippi
  13. Stockton, California
  14. Omaha, Nebraska
  15. Chattanooga, Tennessee

Chart of the Day: A Buying Binge Driven by Tax Cuts

By The Fiscal Times Staff

The Wall Street Journal reports that the tax cuts and economic environment are prompting U.S. companies to go on a buying binge: “Mergers and acquisitions announced by U.S. acquirers so far in 2018 are running at the highest dollar volume since the first two months of 2000, according to Dealogic. Thomson Reuters, which publishes slightly different numbers, puts it at the highest since the start of 2007.”

Number of the Day: 5.5 Percent

The debate over national health care aside, more Americans today say they get "excellent health care" than did in the early 2000s, according to <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/150806/rate-own-healthcare-quality-coverage-excellent.aspx" target="_blank"
Getty Images
By Yuval Rosenberg

Health care spending in the U.S. will grow at an average annual rate of 5.5 percent from 2017 through 2026, according to new estimates published in Health Affairs by the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The projections mean that health care spending would rise as a share of the economy from 17.9 percent in 2016 to 19.7 percent in 2026.

Trump Clearly Has No Problem with Debt and Deficits

U.S. President Trump sits at his desk before signing bills at the White House in Washington
Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
By Yuval Rosenberg

A self-proclaimed “king of debt,” President Trump has produced a budget that promises red ink as far as the eye can see. With last year's $1.5 trillion tax cut reducing revenues, the White House gave up even trying to pretend that its budget would balance anytime soon, and even the rosy economic projections contained in the budget couldn’t produce enough revenues, however fanciful, to cover the shortfall.

The Trump budget spends as much over 10 years as any budget produced by President Barack Obama, according to Jim Tankersley of The New York Times. And it projects total deficits of more than $7 trillion over the next decade — "a number that could double if the administration turns out to be overestimating economic growth and if the $3 trillion in spending cuts the White House has floated do not materialize in Congress,” Tankersley says.

Trump — who once promised to both balance the budget and pay down the national debt — isn’t the only one throwing off the shackles of fiscal restraint. Republicans as a whole appear to be embracing a new set of economic preferences defined by lower taxes and higher spending, in what Bloomberg describes as a “striking turnabout” in attitudes toward deficits and the national debt.

But some conservatives tell Tankersley that the GOP's core beliefs on spending and debt remain intact — and that spending on Social Security and Medicare, the primary drivers of the national debt, are all that matters when it comes to implementing fiscal restraint. 

“They know that right now, a fundamental reform of entitlements won’t happen," John H. Cochrane, an economist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, tells Tankersley. "So, they have avoided weekly chaos and gotten needed military spending through by opening the spending bill, and they got an important reduction in growth-distorting marginal corporate rates through by accepting a bit more deficits. They know that can’t be the end of the story.”

Democrats, of course, have warned that the next chapter in the tale will involve big cuts to Social Security and Medicare. Even before we get there, though, Tankersley questions whether the GOP approach stands up to scrutiny: "This is a bit like saying, only regular exercise will keep America from having a fatal heart attack, so, you know, it's ok to eat a few more hamburgers now." 

Part of the Shutdown-Ending Deal: $31 Billion More in Tax Cuts

The U.S. Capitol building is lit at dusk ahead of planned votes on tax reform in Washington, U.S., December 18, 2017.   REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/Files
Joshua Roberts
By The Fiscal Times Staff

Margot Sanger-Katz and Jim Tankersley in The New York Times: “The deal struck by Democrats and Republicans on Monday to end a brief government shutdown contains $31 billion in tax cuts, including a temporary delay in implementing three health care-related taxes.”

“Those delays, which enjoy varying degrees of bipartisan support, are not offset by any spending cuts or tax increases, and thus will add to a federal budget deficit that is already projected to increase rapidly as last year’s mammoth new tax law takes effect.”

IRS Paid $20 Million to Collect $6.7 Million in Tax Debts

The IRS provides second chances to get your tax return right with Form 1040X.
iStockphoto
By The Fiscal Times Staff

Congress passed a law in 2015 requiring the IRS to use private debt collection agencies to pursue “inactive tax receivables,” but the financial results are not encouraging so far, according to a new taxpayer advocate report out Wednesday.

In fiscal year 2017, the IRS received $6.7 million from taxpayers whose debts were assigned to private collection agencies, but the agencies were paid $20 million – “three times the amount collected,” the report helpfully points out.

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our free newsletter.