Taylor Swift’s $2M Ring Puts Michigan’s $8.5K Average into Perspective
Article courtesy of SD Bullion.
How much does Michigan spend on engagement rings? Definitely not as much as Taylor Swift’s new $2M ring…
- Michigan ranks eighth, with its residents spending $8,535 on engagement rings.
- The research examined the average cost of engagement rings alongside income data todetermine which states spend the most in 2025.
- South Dakotans spend the least on engagement rings, at just $3,005 on average.
A new study has revealed the states that spend the most money on engagement rings, with Washington coming in first place.
Bullion dealer SD Bullion gathered data on the cost of engagement rings, personal expenditures, and income data to calculate the states spending the most money on engagement rings.
Table 1: The top 10 states spending the most on engagement rings
|
Rank |
State |
Ring cost |
Percentage of income |
|
1 |
Washington |
$10,109 |
12.0% |
|
2 |
California |
$9,482 |
11.1% |
|
3 |
Illinois |
$9,197 |
12.4% |
|
4 |
Kansas |
$8,947 |
13.2% |
|
5 |
New Jersey |
$8,842 |
10.5% |
|
6 |
Florida |
$8,809 |
12.5% |
|
7 |
New York |
$8,785 |
10.2% |
|
8 |
Michigan |
$8,535 |
13.5% |
|
9 |
Massachusetts |
$8,193 |
8.7% |
|
10 |
Texas |
$8,063 |
11.9% |
Washington has been crowned the state that spends the most money on engagement rings, with an average of $10,109 per ring, which is more than 50% above the national average. This means Washington residents spend 12.0% of their annual income on an engagement ring.
California comes in second place, spending an average of $9,482 on an engagement ring, which is still far higher than the U.S. average. Engagement rings are costing Californians 11.1% of their annual income.
Illinois ranks third, as an engagement ring costs $9,197 on average in this state. Here, residents spend 12.4% of their yearly income to afford a ring.
In Kansas, residents spend $8,947 for an engagement ring on average, putting the state in fourth. This means people in Kansas spend a staggering 13.2% of their annual income for an engagement ring.
New Jersey ranks fifth, where an engagement ring costs $8,842 on average. This means New Jersey residents allocate 10.5% of their annual income to afford a ring.
Florida comes in sixth place, where residents spend $8,809 on average for an engagement ring. That is 12.5% of the average Floridian’s annual income.
New Yorkers are spending an average of $8,785 on an engagement ring, meaning the state ranks seventh. This is costing the average New Yorker 10.2% of their annual income.
Michigan ranks eighth, with residents spending an average of $8,535 on an engagement ring. Massachusetts follows in ninth at $8,193, and Texas rounds out the top ten at $8,063.
Table 2: The top 10 states spending the least on engagement rings
|
Rank |
State |
Ring cost |
Percentage of income |
|
1 |
South Dakota |
$3,005 |
4.1% |
|
=2 |
Maine |
$3,184 |
4.7% |
|
=2 |
Utah |
$3,184 |
4.8% |
|
=3 |
Delaware |
$4,106 |
5.9% |
|
=3 |
Mississippi |
$4,106 |
7.9% |
|
4 |
Indiana |
$4,181 |
6.6% |
|
5 |
Connecticut |
$4,261 |
4.6% |
At the other end of the study, South Dakotans spend the least on engagement rings, at just $3,005. This is 53.9% below the national average and equates to 4.1% of a resident’s average annual income.
Maine and Utah rank in joint second, with residents spending 4.7% and 4.8% of their annual income on engagement rings, respectively. According to the study, this equates to $3,184, which is 51.2% below average in America.
Chase Turner, CEO of SD Bullion, commented on the findings,
“Weddings are one of the most expensive events in someone’s life. With 2.8 million Americans proposing every year and the average cost of a ring coming in at approximately $6,527 in this study, it’s best to think ahead when planning for a future as a married couple.
“This research highlights which states are spending the most on engagement rings, with Washington taking the top spot. What’s interesting is that all states in the top 10 ranking spend at least 20% more on engagement rings than the national average, highlighting a drive to indulge on luxuries in these locations.”
Methodology
This study uses data on engagement ring prices, personal expenditures, and income data to rank each US state by how much it spends on engagement rings.
Sources
- World Population Review
- bea
- CNN
Table 3: Full ranking for the states spending the most on engagement rings
|
State |
Ring cost |
Percentage of income |
|
Washington |
$10,109 |
12.0% |
|
California |
$9,482 |
11.1% |
|
Illinois |
$9,197 |
12.4% |
|
Kansas |
$8,947 |
13.2% |
|
New Jersey |
$8,842 |
10.5% |
|
Florida |
$8,809 |
12.5% |
|
New York |
$8,785 |
10.2% |
|
Michigan |
$8,535 |
13.5% |
|
Massachusetts |
$8,193 |
8.7% |
|
Texas |
$8,063 |
11.9% |
|
Louisiana |
$7,959 |
13.0% |
|
Virginia |
$7,934 |
10.3% |
|
Kentucky |
$7,918 |
13.8% |
|
South Carolina |
$7,874 |
13.1% |
|
Ohio |
$7,796 |
12.1% |
|
Maryland |
$7,553 |
9.6% |
|
Pennsylvania |
$7,552 |
10.6% |
|
Tennessee |
$7,368 |
11.4% |
|
North Carolina |
$7,133 |
11.0% |
|
Missouri |
$7,071 |
10.9% |
|
Minnesota |
$7,050 |
9.4% |
|
Georgia |
$6,868 |
11.0% |
|
New Hampshire |
$6,832 |
8.2% |
|
Arizona |
$6,684 |
10.4% |
|
Wyoming |
$6,670 |
7.8% |
|
North Dakota |
$6,631 |
9.3% |
|
Nevada |
$6,560 |
9.6% |
|
Montana |
$6,353 |
9.4% |
|
Alaska |
$6,143 |
8.2% |
|
New Mexico |
$5,996 |
10.4% |
|
Nebraska |
$5,873 |
8.2% |
|
Colorado |
$5,858 |
7.1% |
|
Hawaii |
$5,733 |
8.2% |
|
Wisconsin |
$5,661 |
8.4% |
|
Arkansas |
$5,422 |
9.1% |
|
Oklahoma |
$5,294 |
8.4% |
|
Alabama |
$5,255 |
9.3% |
|
Idaho |
$5,197 |
8.4% |
|
Rhode Island |
$5,185 |
7.4% |
|
Oregon |
$5,126 |
7.3% |
|
West Virginia |
$4,968 |
9.0% |
|
Iowa |
$4,939 |
7.8% |
|
Vermont |
$4,911 |
7.0% |
|
Connecticut |
$4,261 |
4.6% |
|
Indiana |
$4,181 |
6.6% |
|
Delaware |
$4,106 |
5.9% |
|
Mississippi |
$4,106 |
7.9% |
|
Maine |
$3,184 |
4.7% |
|
Utah |
$3,184 |
4.8% |
|
South Dakota |
$3,005 |
4.1% |
Discover more from Michigan Mama News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
