ReportWire

Tag: Social Security

  • Retirement income is highest in these US cities

    Retirement income is highest in these US cities

    [ad_1]

    (NewsNation) — Retirees in the Washington, D.C., area have the highest retirement income in the nation, according to a new study.

    The analysis by SmartAsset found residents of Arlington, Virginia, had the highest retirement income, with an average of $90,140. Cambridge, Massachusetts ($79,563), and The Woodlands, Texas ($79,539), were second and third on the list.

    Of the 345 large cities analyzed, three of the top eight were in the Washington, D.C., area. Most of that stems from higher pensions, IRAs and other retirement accounts rather than Social Security, the report noted.

    Multiple California cities cracked the top ten, including Berkeley ($78,949), Carlsbad ($74,345) and Thousand Oaks ($73,634). Highlands Ranch, Colorado, and Naperville, Illinois, were also high on the list, with retirement incomes above $75,000.

    The city totals were calculated using U.S. Census data and include all income from retirement accounts such as pension plans, IRAs and 401(k)s as well as Social Security income. “Retirees” refers to people aged 65 or older.

    Retirement plans like 401(k)s and IRAs make up the bulk of most people’s retirement income, and a surging stock market has helped boost those balances recently.

    Last quarter, the number of retirement account millionaires rose to a record 485,000, up 15% from the quarter prior and a 43% increase from a year ago, according to new data from Fidelity.

    Individuals in that group had been in their 401(k) plans for an average of 26 years at an average contribution rate of 17%.

    However, those accounts are not the norm and make up just 2% of the roughly 24 million defined contribution plan accounts at Fidelity, Bloomberg reported.

    Instead, SmartAsset’s city analysis suggests most retirees live on much less than the typical American household.

    Across all large cities, the average retirement income was $52,723, well below the median household income of $74,580. That gap underscores the financial anxiety many are feeling today.

    “You look at your 401(k) and your savings, and to make ends meet, you start taking out $100 here and $50 there. Before you know it, it’s gone,” Shari Evans Buford, a Florida retiree, told NewsNation.

    According to a recent AARP survey, one in five Americans over age 50 have no retirement savings, and nearly two-thirds are worried they won’t have enough money to support themselves.

    A typical person now thinks they will need $1.46 million to retire comfortably, even though savers have only set aside $88,400 on average, a Northwestern Mutual survey found.

    As a general rule of thumb, Fidelity suggests having ten times your preretirement income saved by age 67 in order to maintain your current lifestyle.

    But with inflation eating away at Americans’ budgets, many retirees, upwards of 12%, have “unretired” this year.

    Shinobu Hindert, a financial educator, said other would-be retirees are taking a “soft retirement,” where they cut back on hours but continue working for the benefits.

    “They’re not completely exiting the workforce altogether, but they’re finding a part-time job that may provide extra health coverage,” Hindert said on NewsNation’s “Morning in America.”

    SmartAsset’s report suggests Social Security will be the primary source of income for many. In 14 of the cities studied, residents relied on Social Security for more than half of their retirement income, including those in Brownsville, Texas; South Bend, IN; and Spokane, WA.

    In dollar terms, retirees in Ann Arbor, Michigan, ranked highest for Social Security income at $30,428, followed by Carmel, Indiana ($30,069), and Goodyear, Arizona ($29,157).

    According to federal data, the average Social Security payment for retired workers was $1,915 per month in April. However, the size of that check varies depending on how long someone worked, what they made and when they started collecting.

    This year, an average of almost 68 million people will receive a Social Security benefit each month, and by 2035, the number of Americans aged 65 and older is set to hit 75 million.

    [ad_2]

    Andrew Dorn

    Source link

  • Sen. Tuberville thinks Social Security wastes taxpayer money. What’s wrong — and what it might take to fix it

    Sen. Tuberville thinks Social Security wastes taxpayer money. What’s wrong — and what it might take to fix it

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Tuberville thinks Social Security wastes taxpayer money. What’s wrong — and what it might take to fix it

    Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama has a reputation as a controversial political figure. In particular, his trading practices on the stock market have raised eyebrows — especially given the power and influence his position affords him.

    More recently, he took a number of jabs at the nation’s crumbling Social Security system — from the taxing of benefits to its dwindling funding.

    Don’t miss

    Tuberville made this fearless, blustery forecast during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing in February: “There’s going to be about 150 million people coming up here saying, ‘Where’s our damn money that we paid in? I could have put my Social Security money, 40 years in tax, in [stock] the market and probably be worth $8-to-$10 million today but the federal government wasted it.’”

    His remarks may be full of hyperbole. It’s hard to imagine most Americans making $8 million in the stock market with the same amount paid into Social Security, for example. But he’s got a point to make. Social Security is in deep financial trouble.

    How Social Security reached the breaking point

    With the Social Security tangle, it’s easy to point the finger at federal waste and mismanagement. But the heart of the matter can’t fit on a politician’s bumper sticker. In fact, the problems stretch back decades.

    One major issue involves life expectancy. When the Social Security Act of 1935 was passed, the average expectancy in America was 59.9 years for men and 63.9 years for women, per the University of California, Berkeley. Fast forward almost 90 years and people are living longer: 73.5 and 79.3 years for men and women, respectively, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s more than 20% longer for both sexes, which could not have been predicted when the program was designed.

    Another involves rising costs. Even after Congress overhauled the coverage, financing and benefits structure in 1983, the reserves that fund the program are expected to fall short as early as 2034. Taxpayers will continue to pay into the system, but at that point Social Security benefits may not be paid in full.

    So, when Tuberville envisions a senior stampede on Washington, he may not be far off.

    Read more: ‘Baby boomers bust’: Robert Kiyosaki warns that older Americans will get crushed in the ‘biggest bubble in history’ — 3 shockproof assets for instant insurance now

    The third rail of American politics

    Speaking of the nation’s capital, you may wonder why lawmakers have failed to act, knowing that the Social Security clock is ticking but still has roughly a dozen years left on it. The answer is complicated.

    For more than 40 years, Social Security has been called “the third rail of American politics.” That’s because any efforts to fix it threaten to cause so much wrangling and outcry among voters that it’s perceived as safer just to kick the funding can down the road.

    Raising taxes could provide a quick and perhaps permanent fix. But aside from conservative lawmakers opposing this, so, too, do seniors — as the very thing that could save the program may well impact their wallets. Senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, Andrew G. Biggs, has called it “a game of chicken.”

    And while the need for Congress members to roll up their sleeves might seem like an imperative, these days that’s more a sign of political fisticuffs than no-nonsense problem-solving.

    Arguably, Congress has never been more divided and dysfunctional. This election year has already seen a number of bills stalled and close calls in terms of government shutting down.

    No wonder Tuberville posted to X (formerly known as Twitter) on April 18: “Washington, DC is nothing but organized grabass.”

    What to read next

    This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Forecast for 2025 Was Just Updated, and It May Surprise Retirees

    The Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Forecast for 2025 Was Just Updated, and It May Surprise Retirees

    [ad_1]

    Brisk inflation on the tail end of the pandemic led to a historic 8.7% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security benefits in 2023. Retired workers hadn’t received a pay raise that large in four decades. Yet, the 2023 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) conducted by the non-profit Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) found that many retirees continued to struggle with financial hardship last year.

    “The confidence both workers and retirees have in their ability to finance their retirements dropped significantly in 2023,” said Craig Copeland, EBRI Director of Wealth Benefits. “The last time a decline in confidence of this magnitude occurred was in 2008 during the global financial crisis.” The RCS also found that 58% of retirees expected to make significant spending cuts to keep pace with rising prices.

    Adding to those concerns, Social Security benefits got a smaller 3.2% COLA this year, much to the dismay of many recipients. Indeed, 71% of retirees surveyed by The Senior Citizens League (TSCL), a non-profit senior advocacy group, said household costs have increased more than 3.2%, and 53% have already spent their emergency savings.

    To that end, many retirees are probably hoping (and perhaps even expecting) a larger benefit increase next year. Unfortunately, the latest projection from TSCL shows Social Security’s COLA shrinking once again in 2025.

    Two Social Security cards sitting atop a $100 bill.

    Image source: Getty Images.

    Why Social Security’s COLAs may have fallen behind inflation

    Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) are based on the average inflation rate during the third quarter, the three-month period that includes July, August, and September. Curiously, COLAs are calculated using the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W), a subset of the better known CPI-U.

    I call that curious because the CPI-W tracks price changes from the perspective of office workers and other employees that earn an hourly wage. But those individuals tend to spend money differently than Social Security recipients. For instance, workers may spend more on apparel and education, while retired workers tend to spend more on housing and healthcare. Some experts believe that discrepancy is why COLAs may have fallen behind inflation.

    The calculation itself is straightforward: The third-quarter CPI-W from the current year is divided by the third-quarter CPI-W from the prior year, and the percent increase (if any) becomes the COLA in the following year. For instance, the CPI-W increased 3.2% in the third quarter of 2023, so Social Security benefits increased by 3.2% in 2024.

    Social Security benefits are on pace for a 2.6% COLA in 2025

    Inflation has definitely moderated since peaking in June 2022, but an unsettling trend has emerged in recent months. Rather than continuing to decelerate, consumer prices are once again building steam. Specifically, the CPI-W increased 2.9% in January, 3.1% in February, and 3.5% in March, the highest reading in seven months.

    The March reading of 3.5% is particularly troubling because it tops the 3.2% COLA applied to Social Security benefits this year. That means benefits lost buying power last month because they increased less quickly than consumer prices. If that trend persists, beneficiaries may find themselves in an increasingly difficult financial position as the year drags on.

    Despite that challenge, Social Security payments are on track to get a 2.6% COLA next year, according to The Senior Citizens League. That updated forecast tops the 1.8% COLA the group projected in February, but it falls short of the 3.2% COLA doled out in 2024. That is certainly an unpleasant surprise for many retired workers.

    For context, the average retired-worker benefit was $1,910.79 per month in February 2024. Adding 2.6% to that figure brings the total to $1,960.47, meaning the average retiree would get about $49.68 more per month if Social Security benefits do indeed get a 2.6% COLA in 2025.

    Of course, that figure is just an estimate. The Social Security Administration cannot determine the official COLA until third-quarter inflation data is available. That information is usually published in mid-October. In the meantime, retired workers should hope for the best but plan for worst. Meticulous budgeting and frugal spending are good places to start.

    Additionally, it wouldn’t hurt to bring in some extra income. That could mean getting a part-time job, or simply moving money to a high-yield savings account, many of which look attractive given that interest rates have risen substantially.

    The $22,924 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook

    If you’re like most Americans, you’re a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known “Social Security secrets” could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $22,924 more… each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we’re all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.

    View the “Social Security secrets”

    The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

    The Social Security Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Forecast for 2025 Was Just Updated, and It May Surprise Retirees was originally published by The Motley Fool

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Data doesn’t show tally of voter registration without IDs

    Data doesn’t show tally of voter registration without IDs

    [ad_1]

    A social media user took to Facebook to spread the word about what he claims is documented evidence of voter fraud.

    “Show your Democrat friend this post when they claim voter fraud doesn’t occur,” read the April 2 Facebook post. “From the Federal Social Security website (link below), you can see how many people each of the 43 states are registering to vote who DO NOT HAVE IDs.”

    The post included a screengrab of a spreadsheet and a link to a Social Security Administration webpage. 

    This post was flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    (Screenshot from Facebook.)

    The linked page showed the Social Security Administration’s “Weekly Data for Help America Vote Verification (HAVV) Transactions by State January 2011 to Present Totals.”

    However, this data wasn’t what the post promised. 

    Rather than showing how many people have registered to vote without IDs, the table’s data reflects the number of times a state requested information from a Social Security Administration system used to verify voters’ identities. 

    The Help America Vote Verification System

    Under the 2002 Help America Vote Act, state election officials must verify new voters’ information. States can do this by verifying a voter’s driver’s license number against the state’s Motor Vehicle Administration’s database or, in cases in which the voter does has no driver’s license, verifying the last four digits of the voter’s Social Security number.

    In response to the 2002 law, the Social Security Administration set up the Help America Vote Verification system, sometimes called the HAVV system. 

    Today, the Social Security Administration reports that 43 states use this system to verify a person’s name, birth date and last four Social Security number digits. The table the post linked to tracks states’ requests for four-digit matches from January 2011 on. It shows how many have been processed, how many could not be processed, how many yielded matches and how many weren’t matched. The data does not reflect numbers of people, let alone people registered to vote.

    Sean Morales-Doyle, who directs the voting rights program at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, said it is inaccurate to claim the table shows how many people states have registered to vote without IDs. 

    “The fact that a state is verifying the last four digits of a registrant’s Social Security number does not mean that that person registered to vote without an ID,” he said. 

    Federal law requires that people registering to vote in a federal election provide a driver’s license number, a state ID number, the last four digits of a Social Security number or check a box saying they have none of those things, Morales-Doyle said. 

    New York State’s voter registration form. (Screenshot from New York State Board of Elections)

    On some states’ voter registration forms, voters who have IDs and Social Security numbers could simply choose to fill in the Social Security number because it’s a number they have memorized, he said. Filling out that section of the application does not in itself mean the applicants lack IDs.

    States can also repeatedly request verifications on the same person’s Social Security number.

    In a 2010 audit of the Social Security Administration system, the inspector general’s office found that during fiscal year 2008, 32% of transactions submitted by 25 states “related to the same voter data being re-submitted 10 or more times.”

    Ohio, for example, “submitted the same voter information 1,778 times during the year for a 77-year-old man who died in December 2005,” the audit found. 

    The Social Security Administration’s press office did not immediately respond to our questions about the data.

    Officials in multiple states rebut this claim

    Responding to claims misrepresenting the Social Security Administration’s data, election officials in Arizona, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin said that the data does not show millions of people registering to vote without IDs.  

    Although the system was developed to verify identities when people lack driver’s license numbers, Morales-Doyle said, “That doesn’t actually mean that every time someone is being run through this system it’s because they just registered and they don’t have a driver’s license number.”

    The data contains no specific information about whether the people registering had photo IDs. 

    “In Pennsylvania, the Department of State uses the Help America Vote Verification (HAVV) to check partial social security numbers (SSN) not only for voter registration applications, but also for absentee and mail ballot applications,” Pennsylvania Department of State spokesperson Ellen Lyon told PolitiFact.

    Robert Kehoe, a Wisconsin Elections Commission deputy administrator, said that the state’s data as it appears on the Social Security Administration’s website reflects that a voter registered without providing a state ID or driver’s license number. Wisconsin voter registrations are verified using Wisconsin Department of Transportation data or, if an ID number is unavailable, using Social Security number verification. 

    JP Martin, a spokesperson for Arizona’s secretary of state, told PolitiFact that 90% of verification of citizenship proof is done through the Motor Vehicles Division in Arizona, not through the Social Security Administration.

    This isn’t the first time this data has been used to amplify unsupported claims of supposed voter fraud by noncitizens. We’ve similar statements from conservative internet influencers, former President Donald Trump and X owner Elon Musk and rated them False.

    Fraudulent voter registration and voting by noncitizens is rare and usually happens because of a misunderstanding or a mistake. (Voting by noncitizens carries high risks that include deportation or incarceration.) Nevertheless, politicians including Trump and his allies have continuously spread false claims about rampant fraudulent voting by noncitizens. 

    Not all people without IDs are noncitizens. One 2023 survey found that almost 21 million voting-age U.S. citizens do not have valid, unexpired driver’s licenses. 

    And, someone registering to vote does not mean a vote was cast, said Cassondra Knudson, a spokesperson for Minnesota’s Secretary of State. Election officials have several layers of verification to ensure only eligible voters cast ballots.

    Our ruling

    A social media post claimed data on the Social Security Administration’s website showed “how many people each of the 43 states are registering to vote who DO NOT HAVE IDs.” 

    That’s inaccurate: It shows the results of requests from 43 states to verify partial Social Security numbers under the Help America Vote Act. Sometimes states verify the same voter’s information multiple times, and not all verification requests are for voters registering without IDs. 

    We rate this claim False.

    PolitiFact Staff Writer Sofia Ahmed and PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.

    RELATED: More than 2 million noncitizens have not registered to vote in Arizona, Pennsylvania and Texas

    RELATED: No ID required to vote? That’s not the case for most voters

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Financial Doomsday Clock Is Ticking for Medicare, Social Security

    Financial Doomsday Clock Is Ticking for Medicare, Social Security

    [ad_1]

    j4p4n, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

    By Adam Andrzejewski for RealClearInvestigations

    Topline: It will take an extra $175.3 trillion to keep Medicare and Social Security intact for when today’s children reach old age, according to OpenTheBooks’ analysis of the nation’s latest financial report.

    Key facts: The Treasury Department projected spending over the “infinite horizon,” or the lifetime of everyone in the country today.

    Take A Look At How High Inflation Is Today Compared To Where Prices Were In 2019

    It projects that current participants in Medicare and Social Security will collect $105.4 trillion more in benefits from the programs than they contribute into them through payroll taxes.

    Future participants, who are younger than 15 and even in the womb, will use up $69.9 trillion more than they pay in taxes.

    Combined, that’s an unfathomable $175.3 trillion gap that can only be closed with “increased borrowing, higher taxes, reduced program spending or some combination,” according to the Treasury.

    There’s no easy way to put that number in context. The national debt is “only” $34 trillion. The federal government has spent roughly $200 trillion on everything since the Constitution was written in 1787, even adjusted for inflation.

    Medicare Part B, which covers doctor’s visits and medical equipment, is the largest liability. It’s expected to be underfunded by $99.5 trillion.

    Social Security needs an extra $68.8 trillion to be solvent.

    Since It Now Costs $1.5 million to Retire, It’s Time To Rethink What Retirement Means

    Background: Medicare and Social Security are supposed to fully fund themselves through payroll taxes, health care premiums and benefit taxes, a process that worked well until the 1980s.

    Former President Ronald Reagan, among others, warned of the looming funding crisis and encouraged Congress to pass the Social Security Reform Act of 1983.

    But since then, the system has remained largely untouched.

    Medicare spending was equal to 2.9% of the U.S. GDP in 2022, but the Congressional Budget Office expects it to reach 5.9% of GDP by 2052. Social Security spending is projected to rise from 4.9% to 6.4%.

    Medicare is expected to start cutting benefits in seven years, but the long-term implications are much more serious. The Treasury is required by U.S. law to borrow money if there is not enough to pay for Medicare and Social Security, which may soon be impossible without multiplying the federal debt.

    Summary: There’s no realistic path toward generating the amount of money needed to avoid slashing Medicare and Social Security payments. Politicians have deferred having this difficult conversation for decades, but soon that will no longer be an option.

    The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

    Syndicated with permission from RealClearWire.

    Kamala Harris Falsely Claims Trump Said He Will ‘Weaponize’ The DOJ Against His Political Opponents

    [ad_2]

    RealClearWire

    Source link

  • A solution to the retirement crisis? Americans should work for more years, BlackRock CEO says

    A solution to the retirement crisis? Americans should work for more years, BlackRock CEO says

    [ad_1]

    Committee proposes raising Social Security retirement age


    Committee proposes raising Social Security retirement age

    02:33

    With Americans living longer and spending more years in retirement, the nation’s changing demographics are “putting the U.S. retirement system under immense strain,” according to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink in his annual shareholder letter. 

    One way to fix it, he suggests, is for Americans to work longer before they head into retirement.

    “No one should have to work longer than they want to. But I do think it’s a bit crazy that our anchor idea for the right retirement age — 65 years old — originates from the time of the Ottoman Empire,” Fink wrote in his 2024 letter, which largely focuses on the retirement crisis facing the U.S. and other nations as their populations age. 

    Fink’s suggestions about addressing the nation’s retirement crisis come amid a debate about the future of Social Security, which will face a funding shortfall in less than a decade. Some Republican lawmakers have proposed raising the retirement age for claiming Social Security benefits, arguing, like Fink, that because Americans are living longer, they should work longer, too. 


    How to maximize retirement savings by minimizing taxes

    03:38

    But that ignores the reality of aging in the workplace, with the AARP finding in a 2022 survey that the majority of workers over 50 say they face ageism at work. And because of ill health or an unexpected job loss, many older Americans stop working before they planned to. In fact, the median age of retirement in the U.S. is 62 — even lower than the “traditional” retirement age of 65. 

    Fink is right in saying that the retirement system isn’t working for most households, noted retirement expert and New School of Research professor Teresa Ghilarducci told CBS MoneyWatch. But his assessment that people should work longer misses the mark, she added.

    “After a 40-year-old experiment of a voluntary, do-it-yourself-based pension system, half of workers have no easy way to save for retirement,” she said. “And in rich nations, why isn’t age 65 a good target for most workers to stop working for someone else?”

    She added, “Working longer won’t get us out of this. Most people don’t retire when they want to, anyway.”

    Vested interest?

    To be sure, America’s retirement gap, or the gulf between what people need to fund their golden years versus what they’ve actually saved, isn’t new, nor is Social Security’s looming funding emergency. Yet Fink’s comments are noteworthy because of his status as the head of the world’s largest asset manager, with more than $10 trillion in assets, including many retirement accounts. 

    Of course, Fink has a vested interest in Americans boosting their retirement assets, given that his firm collects fees from those accounts. And in his letter, he also promotes a new target-date fund from BlackRock called LifePath Paycheck, which will roll out in April. 

    “He’s steering the conversation toward BlackRock — and a lot of people who talk about Social Security reform on Wall Street want to privatize it in some manner and make money,” Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff, an expert on Social Security, told CBS MoneyWatch. 

    To be sure, Fink also praises public policy success stories for addressing retirement savings, such as Australia’s system, which began in the early 1990s and requires employers to put a portion of a worker’s income into a fund. Today, Australia has the world’s 54th largest population but the 4th largest retirement system, he noted.

    “As a nation, we should do everything we can to make retirement investing more automatic for workers,” he noted.


    Expert on why more Americans are withdrawing from their 401(k) retirement funds early

    02:24

    Can boomers fix the problem?

    Fink, who was born in 1952, said that his generation has an obligation to help fix the nation’s retirement problems. The financial insecurity facing younger Americans, such as millennials and Gen Z, are creating generations of disillusioned, anxious workers, he noted. 

    “They believe my generation — the baby boomers — have focused on their own financial well-being to the detriment of who comes next. And in the case of retirement, they’re right,” Fink wrote. 

    He added, “And before my generation fully disappears from positions of corporate and political leadership, we have an obligation to change that.”

    Boomer (and older) lawmakers and politicians often don’t see eye-to-eye on how to fix the retirement crisis. But failing to fix the issue damages not only the retirements of individual Americans, but the country’s collective belief in the future of the U.S., Fink noted. 

    “We risk becoming a country where people keep their money under the mattress and their dreams bottled up in their bedroom,” he noted.

    Aimee Picchi

    Aimee Picchi is the associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, where she covers business and personal finance. She previously worked at Bloomberg News and has written for national news outlets including USA Today and Consumer Reports.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The ‘extreme’ Social Security move that actually makes sense

    The ‘extreme’ Social Security move that actually makes sense

    [ad_1]

    The Social Security war is on, as it is during every presidential election. The format is always the same: Democrats say Republicans want to wreck the popular retirement plan for seniors, while Republicans say Democrats want to keep the program going through unsustainable tax increases that will kneecap the entire US economy.

    It’s mostly gobbledygook, on both sides. But there’s an important grain of truth in the latest Republican plan to shore up Social Security, which President Biden calls “extreme.” It’s not extreme at all. It’s actually sensible — and inevitable.

    The Republican Study Committee (RSC), which represents most Republicans in the House of Representatives, recently published its blueprint for federal spending in 2025. One measure would be “modest adjustments to the retirement age” determining eligibility for Social Security “to account for increases in life expectancy.”

    Sound crazy? It shouldn’t, because it has happened before. In 1983, Congress passed legislation gradually raising the retirement age to qualify for full Social Security benefits from 65 to 67, over a span of 30 years. During the same period that the Social Security retirement age rose by two years, US life expectancy rose by more than four.

    Biden, however, called the GOP proposal an “extreme budget” that would cut Social Security and healthcare benefits for millions. “I will stop them,” he declared. Other Democrats are piling on. Biden’s close ally, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, lambasted the RSC targets as “cruel” and said they “read like a wish list for Donald Trump and the GOP hard right.” Instead of any changes to benefits or eligibility, Biden and his fellow Democrats want to raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy to keep Social Security fully funded.

    WASHINGTON - MARCH 21: Rep. Kevin Hern, R-Okla., speaks during the Republican Study Committee news conference to unveil their FY2025 budget proposal in the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, March 21, 2024. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.) speaks during the Republican Study Committee news conference to unveil their FY2025 budget proposal in the US Capitol on Thursday, March 21, 2024. (Bill Clark via Getty Images)

    This, in a microcosm, is why Washington never solves solvable problems until it’s nearly too late. Each side vilifies the other and the mudslinging makes it impossible for ordinary voters to know what’s logical and pragmatic. Incendiary politicians appeal to fear rather than common sense, and a lot of the time it works.

    Back to Social Security. Within the next 10 years, the program is likely to run short of the money needed to pay all benefits in full. That’s because it will exhaust the Social Security trust funds, which are basically banked money, leaving only incoming payroll taxes to cover benefits. At the same time, enrollment in the program is swelling, and a declining birth rate is leaving fewer working people to pay for retiree benefits. Without any changes, the program will only be able to pay about 75% of obligated benefits by 2033, according to the latest estimates.

    Medicare, the health program for seniors, is in a similar position, for similar reasons. That could actually run short of money a couple of years sooner than Social Security, with 2031 being the latest estimate of D-Year.

    Drop Rick Newman a note, follow him on Twitter, or sign up for his newsletter.

    There are three ways to address these imminent funding shortfalls: Raise the taxes that pay for Social Security and Medicare, reduce benefits, or redirect money from general tax revenues to retiree programs. The last option would cause other problems, such as leaving far less money for all the other things the government pays for and pushing up the national debt when it’s already uncomfortably large.

    That leaves tax hikes and benefit cuts. Whenever Congress gets around to it, bolstering Social Security and Medicare will almost certainly require both. There are many proposals for how to do this. The compromise position is likely to involve gradually increasing the retirement age again, as Republicans want to do, while also raising the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare, as Biden wants to do. The bar for eligibility could go higher, to exclude wealthier Americans who don’t need the money. Tweaking other benefits could help close other budgetary gaps.

    Political reality will likely prevent any changes that drastically harm voters. Any tax hikes will start with the wealthy first, such as lifting the ceiling on the Social Security payroll tax, which currently applies only to the first $168,600 in income. In fact, one “progressive” change would be lifting the income ceiling, so the payroll tax applies to all income, while exempting workers below a certain threshold from paying any payroll tax at all.

    Any change in the eligibility age will occur gradually, as it did before. Any outright reductions in benefits would likely apply to future generations, not to people currently enrolled in the programs. That’s a time-tested way to ensure nobody loses anything they already have, which tends to upset voters, and especially seniors who vote in the highest numbers. It’s less of a problem if it affects future beneficiaries who may not even be aware of the cutbacks.

    Why don’t politicians just come out and say, “This is what it’s going to take to solve our problems”? Because compromise solutions usually involve everybody giving up something, and most politicians are afraid to tell voters the truth. To some extent, that’s rational. Democratic voters don’t want to hear about benefit cuts, and Republican voters don’t want to hear about tax increases. So their elected representatives tell them what they do want to hear.

    When crunch time comes, and it’s no longer possible to delay the benefit cuts and tax hikes it will take to fix the nation’s retirement programs, politicians of both parties will tacitly admit the simple fixes they peddled for years were never going to be enough. By that time, however, they will have won another election, or two, or three, and they’ll be telling themselves that fibbing to voters actually works.

    Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Twitter at @rickjnewman.

    Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow’s stock prices.

    Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Social Security clawed back overpayments by docking 100% of benefits. Now it’s capping it at 10%.

    Social Security clawed back overpayments by docking 100% of benefits. Now it’s capping it at 10%.

    [ad_1]

    Social Security Administration demanding people pay back billions


    Social Security Administration demanding people pay back billions

    03:32

    The Social Security Administration said it’s reforming how it recovers overpayments of benefits following an outcry over policies that drove some Americans into financial distress, and even homelessness.

    By law, the agency must claw back overpaid benefits, but SSA’s policies had sparked outrage and concern after some Social Security recipients reported surprise bills that demanded payment within 30 days. Sometimes the bills mounted into the tens of thousands of dollars.

    If they couldn’t immediately pay the bill, the agency could dock their entire monthly Social Security payment, leaving some people financially destitute, as reported by “60 Minutes,” KFF Health News and other media outlets.

    In a statement issued Wednesday, Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley said the agency will cease “the heavy-handed practice of intercepting 100% of an overpaid beneficiary’s monthly Social Security benefit” if they failed to respond to a demand for repayment. Instead, he added, the agency will limit the clawback to 10% of an overpaid beneficiary’s monthly benefit. 

    Additionally, the Social Security Administration will extend repayment plans to 60 months, up from its prior limit of 36 months, giving recipients an additional two years to repay the money. 

    The agency’s previous policies had led to “grave injustices to individuals, as we see from the stories of people losing their homes or being put in dire financial straits when they suddenly see their benefits cut off to recover a decades-old overpayment,” O’Malley said in his statement. 

    O’Malley, who became the SSA commissioner in December, had recently vowed to fix the system of recouping overpayments, which he had called “cruel-hearted” in an interview with with KFF Health News. 

    In a hearing before the Senate Committee on Aging on Wednesday, O’Malley said the previous policies had undermined the essential purpose of the Social Security program, which he said was “to keep seniors from being put under a bridge through no fault of their own.”

    In addition to capping benefit clawbacks to 10% of a monthly check and giving people more time to repay the money, the agency said it’s making two additional changes. Beneficiaries who were overpaid will no longer need to prove they aren’t at fault for causing the overpayment, O’Malley said. 

    The agency will also make it easier for people to request a waiver of repayment, in case they believe they weren’t at fault or are unable to pay, he added.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Colorado public defender ransomware attack may have exposed Social Security numbers, personal data

    Colorado public defender ransomware attack may have exposed Social Security numbers, personal data

    [ad_1]

    The Office of the Colorado State Public Defender has acknowledged personal data may have been stolen during a ransomware attack that crippled the statewide agency in early February — but won’t say much else about the ongoing effort to restore its systems after the hack.

    Files “were copied without permission” during the cyberattack, which was discovered on Feb. 9, and those files may have included names, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, medical information and health insurance information, the agency said in a statement Friday.

    Officials from the public defender’s office are still investigating whose personal data may have been stolen, and whether the personal data of attorneys or their clients was compromised, they said. A statement on the agency’s website urges “individuals” to remain vigilant against identity theft and fraud.

    It’s been more than a month since public defenders across the state were locked out of their computers and files in the ransomware attack and hundreds of court hearings were delayed over the next week because public defenders couldn’t do their jobs.

    Officials this week refused to answer questions from The Denver Post about what particular parts of the agency’s systems remain inoperable. In a ransomware attack, hackers use malware to hold an organization’s data hostage then demand a payment in cryptocurrency in order for organizations to regain access to that data.

    The public defender’s office also would not disclose the amount of ransom demanded or whether a ransom was paid. A statement on the agency’s website says the office has “made progress in returning to full operations.”

    Heavily redacted emails and text messages released to The Post by the Governor’s Office of Information Technology this week in response to an open records request mention the cyberattack recovery law firm Mullen Coughlin. Chief Deputy Public Defender Zak Brown would not confirm whether the public defender’s office is working with the firm.

    “We have provided all the information we are able to at this time,” he said in an email.

    A message left with the Pennsylvania-based law firm was not returned Wednesday.

    [ad_2]

    Shelly Bradbury

    Source link

  • Flirting With 50? You Should Have This Much in Your 401(k)

    Flirting With 50? You Should Have This Much in Your 401(k)

    [ad_1]

    How Much Should I Have in My 401(k) at 50?

    Most Americans have less in their retirement accounts than they’d like, and much less than the rules say they should have. So, obviously, if that describes you then you’re not alone. Now, most financial advisors recommend that you have between five and six times your annual income in a 401(k) account or other retirement savings account by age 50. With continued growth over the rest of your working career, this amount should generally let you have enough in savings to retire comfortably by age 65.

    Consider working with a financial advisor as you flesh out your retirement plan.

    What Your Retirement Savings Should Look Like by Age 50

    Financial experts sometimes suggest planning for your retirement income to be about 80% of your pre-retirement income. So, for example, someone who earned $100,000 per year going into retirement would plan on having about $80,000 per year while retired. The reason for this discrepancy is that most households tend to have fewer needs and responsibilities while in retirement, and therefore fewer expenses. The only major exception to this rule is when it comes to healthcare. You should expect those costs to rise in your later years.

    To make your savings last, financial experts recommend that you plan on withdrawing about 4% per year from your retirement fund. This will depend on three main factors:

    • How much money you have in your retirement fund

    • The average rate of return that your retirement fund generates

    • Your anticipated Social Security income

    So, for example, say you plan on needing $80,000 per year in retirement.

    If you’re ready to be matched with local advisors that can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now.

    First, you should look up how much money you can expect each month from Social Security. This income will depend on how much you made during your working life, as well as when you choose to retire. If you are an average Social Security recipient it will come to approximately $1,650 a month, or $19,800 a year. So you should plan on withdrawing an additional $60,200 per year to make up the difference.

    Applying the 4% rule of thumb, $60,200/0.04, suggests that this household will want about $1.5 million in their retirement fund. Other, more conservative, recommendations suggest making these plans without accounting for Social Security. In that case, you would want about $2 million in your retirement fund.

    Don’t miss out on news that could impact your finances. Get news and tips to make smarter financial decisions with SmartAsset’s semi-weekly email. It’s 100% free and you can unsubscribe at any time. Sign up today.

    The 4% rule may entail withdrawing too much. It comes from, in part, conservative estimates of your retirement fund’s returns. By the time you retire you should have shifted your portfolio to safe assets. Many retirement funds, with comparatively safe assets, will have a return rate of around 3% to 5% by this point, allowing you to hover right around the replacement rate for your withdrawals.

    So someone who earns $100,000 per year will want to have around $1.5 million in their retirement fund by age 65. At age 50, then, many experts suggest that this retiree would need to have – at a bare minimum – around $600,000 up in a 401(k), or other tax-advantaged account. That would give the retiree 15 years to boost their retirement nest egg by an additional $900,000, or grow by an average of $60,000 annually for each of the next 15 years. That is unlikely to happen without significant capital appreciation in the retiree’s tax-advantaged account. Many advisors recommend seeking a rate of return around 7% to 8% to reach the needed $1.5 million.

    Reaching the Retirement Finish Line

    How Much Should I Have in My 401(k) at 50?How Much Should I Have in My 401(k) at 50?

    How Much Should I Have in My 401(k) at 50?

    Besides making sure that the asset allocation of your retirement fund is sufficiently aggressive, there are at least four other steps you can take to get from $600,000 at 50 to $1.5 million at 65.

    Max Out Your Catch-Up Contributions

    This is the most important thing you can do. The IRS limits how much you can contribute to 401(k), individual retirement account (IRA) and Roth IRA in a single year. After you turn 50 it raises the cap, allowing you to make what are called “catch up contributions.” In 2022, for example, most workers can only contribute up to $20,500 to their 401(k) account. However, anyone age 50 or older can contribute up to $27,000. That extra $6,500 is significant, and between age 50 and age 65 it has time to add up to something very real. Take advantage of it.

    Open Simultaneous Retirement Funds

    The IRS allows you to contribute to a 401(k), an IRA and a Roth IRA in the same year. However, there is overlap between the contribution limits for an IRA and a Roth IRA.

    If you are already maximizing your contribution limits to your 401(k) but are still concerned that it isn’t enough, consider opening an IRA or a Roth IRA to supplement your savings. Doing so will allow you to put money into multiple retirement accounts at the same time, helping you to boost your savings considerably.

    If you already have simultaneous retirement accounts, consider simply opening an earmarked account. Even though it won’t see the same tax advantages, there’s no reason that you can’t save for retirement with an ordinary investment portfolio. You can put as much money into it as you like then just plan on leaving it there for retirement.

    Manage Debt, Manage Spending

    An excellent way to free up some cash is to stop making interest payments on debt. If you have existing debt, paying it off more quickly will reduce the amount that you spend on interest and fees. This will, in turn, give you more cash to dedicate toward your retirement account.

    When it comes to long-term debt, like a mortgage, paying it off more aggressively can also reduce your potential expenses in retirement. You won’t have to make those payments, which can reduce the amount of money you’ll need each month once you’ve stopped working.

    At the same time, consider your overall lifestyle. If you think you may not have enough for your retirement, are there ways that you can shift your lifestyle over the long run that will reduce expenses? Is there someplace less expensive you could live, for example? This isn’t as simple as skipping your morning latte. Instead, consider whether you can shift your monthly needs in a way that might significantly change your budget both today and in retirement.

    Consider Working More and Retiring Later

    If you don’t have enough money to fund additional retirement accounts, consider taking on additional work to earn that money. This can range from freelance or gig work to a formal part-time job.

    This is not a recommendation we make lightly. By the time you’re in your 50s, the last thing most people will want to do is “hustle.” However, secondary work is a good way to boost your finances, and if you need the money for retirement then it has to come from somewhere. More importantly, while it would be unpleasant to need a second job at 55, it would be far worse to need a job at 75. Working today might help ensure that you don’t have to do so tomorrow.

    The jump in Social Security payments from normal retirement age to 70 is significant. If you were born between 1943 and 1954, If you start receiving benefits at age 66 you get 100% of your monthly benefit. Should you start receiving retirement benefits at age 67, you’ll get 108% of the monthly benefit because you delayed getting benefits for 12 months. If you start receiving retirement benefits at age 70, you’ll get 132% of the monthly benefit because you delayed getting benefits for 48 months.

    Bottom Line

    How Much Should I Have in My 401(k) at 50?How Much Should I Have in My 401(k) at 50?

    How Much Should I Have in My 401(k) at 50?

    Most financial experts suggest that retirees should have around five to six times their annual income saved up in their retirement account by age 50. If you haven’t hit that mark, it’s probably a good time to maximize catchup contributions and consider opening one or more additional retirement accounts. In addition, make sure your investments are poised for capital appreciation, which of course entails more risk, and cut your discretionary spending.

    Tips on Retirement Planning

    • We can all use help with our finances, and never more so than when it’s time to save for retirement. That’s where a financial advisor can offer valuable guidance and insight.

      Finding a qualified financial advisor doesn’t have to be hard. SmartAsset’s free tool matches you with up to three financial advisors who serve your area, and you can interview your advisor matches at no cost to decide which one is right for you. If you’re ready to find an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now.

    • Use SmartAsset’s 401(k) calculator to get a quick estimate of how much you’ll have in your 401(k) by the time you retire.

    Photo credit: ©iStock.com/Andranik Hakobyan, ©iStock.com/AndreyPopov, ©iStock.com/DNY59

    The post How Much Should I Have in My 401(k) at 50? appeared first on SmartAsset Blog.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘It’s scary’: American families are homeless, unable to pay mega bills after Social Security benefits blunder. Lawmakers want to put a stop to it — will Congress come to the rescue?

    ‘It’s scary’: American families are homeless, unable to pay mega bills after Social Security benefits blunder. Lawmakers want to put a stop to it — will Congress come to the rescue?

    [ad_1]

    ‘It’s scary’: American families are homeless, unable to pay mega bills after Social Security benefits blunder. Lawmakers want to put a stop to it — will Congress come to the rescue?

    Social Security is meant to be a safety net for the disabled and retired. It delivers about $1.4 trillion in benefits to millions each year.

    However, the federal agency that runs it has been aggressively trying to claw back billions of dollars from those it now says it overpaid.

    Don’t miss

    An investigation by KFF Health News and Cox Media Group revealed that the Social Security Administration had demanded repayments from more than 2 million people a year. Beneficiaries were asked to repay amounts which sometimes reached tens of thousands of dollars.

    Georgia resident Denise Woods told WSB-TV Channel 2 Action News she was forced to live out of her car after receiving notice she had been overpaid Social Security benefits by an eye-watering $57,968.

    When Woods, who has lupus and congestive heart failure, couldn’t repay that amount, she was told her monthly checks of $2,048 would be withheld until it was enough to cover her debt.

    KFF and CMG say their reporting on the matter has triggered a congressional hearing, additional Senate oversight of the agency, an apology from the head of the SSA to Congress about understating overpayments, and an ongoing internal policy review.

    In November, two senators on the Senate subcommittee that oversees Social Security wrote a letter urging the SSA “to take additional action to reduce overpayments and prevent undue harm on the most vulnerable Social Security recipients when recovering overpayments.”

    In December, the Senate Finance Committee said it’s “going to watchdog Social Security’s overpayment program, and will meet with Social Security every month until it is fixed.” Chairman Ron Wyden wrote, “We were told in the past that Social Security was fixing the problem. That clearly has not been the case.”

    Under its new head Martin O’Malley the SSA has proposed using information from payroll data providers to reduce improper payments.

    The SSA’s overpayment problem

    In the fiscal year 2023 (Oct. 1, 2022 to Sept. 30, 2023), the SSA recovered over $4.9 billion in overpayments, but it ended the year with $23 billion of overpayments still uncollected.

    According to KFF Health News, the agency has admitted in the past that many overpayments were the result of errors by the government rather than the people — often elderly, poor or disabled — receiving the extra money.

    Those getting Social Security benefits typically spend their checks on critical living expenses and health care. They’re not stashing it away to cover unexpected four- or five-figure repayment bills from the SSA.

    For some, the repayment burden is life-altering. As part of its probe into the matter, WSB-TV Channel 2 Action News spoke with Nicole Eberhart at an extended-stay hotel, where the legally-blind mom is now living after losing her $1,700 monthly disability check from the SSA due to overpayments.

    Read more: No landlord? No problem! Explore hassle-free real estate investments

    “I was using that money to actually pay for the apartment we were living in,” she told consumer investigator Justin Gray, who has been digging into the overpayments issue for three years.

    As a result of the months-long investigation in partnership in KFF Health News, SSA Acting Commissioner Dr. Kilolo Kijakazi said in Oct. 2023 that she plans on “putting together a team to review overpayment policies and procedures to further improve how we serve our customers.”

    In the meantime, here’s what you can do if you receive a dreaded repayment notice in the post.

    Paying back benefits

    As of December 2023, there were 67 million Americans receiving Social Security benefits. Of that total, over 8.5 million Americans were claiming disability insurance from the SSA, receiving an average monthly benefit of $1,395, according to federal data.

    With numbers like that, it is only natural that mistakes can and do fall through the cracks — but the SSA does have official procedures in place to resolve payment issues.

    “Benefits are overpaid when we can’t accurately calculate your benefit amount because our information is wrong or incomplete,” the SSA explains online. “It can happen if you don’t share updates with us about what’s changed in your life, like your ability to work, living situation, marital status or income.”

    If you receive a letter from the SSA which says you got more money than you should have, you have at least 30 days (plus five mail days from the date of the notice) to pay back the full amount. If you fail to do so within that time frame, the SSA will start collection of the overpayment — potentially by reducing or halting Social Security monthly benefits, or garnishing wages and federal tax refunds — unless you submit a timely request for a waiver or reconsideration.

    How to reduce or appeal your repayment

    A shock Social Security repayment notice doesn’t have to end in your financial ruin. There are ways to request help from the SSA.

    If you receive a valid overpayment notice but are unable to pay the SSA back within 30 days, you can request to repay your debt in smaller and more manageable monthly payments.

    If you don’t agree you’ve been overpaid or the overpayment amount is incorrect, you can submit an appeal online or by mail. Make sure you have all of your medical information and supporting documents (including forms, legal documents, and written statements) ready before requesting a repayment consideration.

    You can also ask the SSA to waive your repayment if you can’t afford it and feel the error wasn’t your fault, or if you think the overpayment is unfair for another reason. Again, the SSA may ask to see evidence of your income and expenses before they agree to waive your debt.

    Receiving any type of payment demand can be scary — especially if you’re not expecting it — but the worst thing you can do is run from it. It is always worth contacting your collector to see if you can come up with a repayment plan that works for you and exploring other ways to improve your situation.

    What to read next

    This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • America is hitting “peak 65” in 2024 as record number of boomers reach retirement age. Here’s what to know.

    America is hitting “peak 65” in 2024 as record number of boomers reach retirement age. Here’s what to know.

    [ad_1]

    2024 will be a record-breaking year for retirement in the U.S., with an average of 11,000 Americans a day expected to celebrate their 65th birthday from now until December.

    Approximately 4.1 million Americans are poised to turn 65 this year and every year through 2027, according to a report from the Alliance for Lifetime Income. Dubbed by experts as “peak 65” or the “silver tsunami,” the figure represents the largest surge of retirement-age Americans in history.

    If you’re one of the many riding the retirement wave this year or next, here’s what you should know, according to one expert.


    Biden administration announces 10 drugs targeted for Medicare price negotiation

    02:53

    Enrolling in Medicare 

    The age of 65 is “a critical year,” Elizabeth O’Brien, senior personal finance reporter for Barron’s, told CBS News. 

    “That’s the year you become eligible for Medicare, so most people when they care 65 can sign up for that, unless you’re still working and still in a job with health insurance,” she said.

    Asked whether everyone who turns 65 should enroll in Medicare, even if they receive health care through their employer, O’Brien says in part, yes, but full enrollment also depends on the situation.

    “First of all, Medicare has two parts: Part A [hospital insurance] and Part B. Even if you are working, you should enroll in Part A because you don’t pay premiums for that,” she said.

    Medicare Part B covers medical services including certain doctor’s appointments, outpatient care and preventive services. For those who already receive health coverage through an employer, Medicare may be your “secondary payer,” that is, the secondary insurance plan that covers costs not paid for by the primary insurance plan, or “primary payer.” 

    Whether or not Medicare is your primary or secondary payer depends on coordination of benefits rules which decide which insurance plan pays first.

    “Part B is a different story,” O’Brien said. “If you’re still working, and if your company has 20 people or more, then that is primary. If you’re working for a very small company, Medicare does become primary so there’s a little bit of nuance there, but basically, you want to avoid late-enrollment penalties if you miss your sign-up window which is right around your 65th birthday.”

    While late enrollment penalties exist for both Medicare parts A and B, those for Part B are an even more serious issue. For each full year you delay enrollment once you reach eligibility at the age of 65, an additional 10% is added to your Medicare Part B premium. Unlike late enrollment penalties for Medicare Part A, which are temporary, late penalties for Medicare Part B are permanent.  


    Avoiding a “financial vortex” when saving for retirement

    03:35

    Retirement savings

    In addition to health care decisions, there are also financial decisions that must be made at the pivotal age of 65, beginning with choosing whether or not to retire, O’Brien said.

    “You’ve got to think about what you’re gonna do with your 401(k). If you’re still working and you’re retiring, are you gonna roll that over into an individual retirement account? Are you gonna leave that where it is with your company?” she said, adding that there are emotional factors to consider when deciding what’s right for you.

    “If you leave your job, what are you going to be doing all day — it’s good to think of that before you get there,” she said. 

    “If you love what you do, there is no reason to stop at 65. You know there are financial benefits and cognitive benefits for continuing to work, so I would say absolutely keep working,” she added.

    For those who have “had enough” of the daily grind, she suggests semi-retirement. “Maybe you’re ready to retire but you still want to do something, there’s a lot to be said about downshifting into a part-time job.”


    Maximizing your retirement contributions throughout your career

    03:26

    Never too early to prepare

    And to those for whom retirement still seems eons away, O’Brien says there are many advantages to starting on your savings sooner than later.

    “One of the biggest mistakes is simply just to not start to save for retirement. And, you know, it’s understandable. When you are young there’s not a lot of extra money in your budget, you’re paying student loans, your rent is too high,” she said. “But that’s precisely when it’s important to start, because you really get more bang for your buck if you start young, do the compound interest.”

    What’s more, while O’Brien assures young people that Social Security will most likely be around for them, she notes that it may pay out significantly less. That’s because the program’s trust funds are on track to be depleted in 2033, unless lawmakers shore up the program before then, and which could lead to benefits getting shaved by about 20%. 

    But that forecast is another reason for younger generations to get an early start on savings, O’Brien said.

    “You’re going to be able to count on Social Security, but probably less than today’s retirees do,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Fact-checking Haley’s New Hampshire claims on fentanyl, education, Trump’s stance on retirement age

    PolitiFact – Fact-checking Haley’s New Hampshire claims on fentanyl, education, Trump’s stance on retirement age

    [ad_1]

    PETERBOROUGH, N.H.: On her 52nd birthday, Republican presidential primary candidate Nikki Haley called out former President Donald Trump on his age and for confusing her with former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. 

    Haley told supporters at the Monadnock Center for History and Culture that during a Jan. 19 rally, Trump, 77, blamed her for failing to secure the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection. 

    “He went on and talked about how I kept the police from going into the Capitol on Jan. 6, went on and repeated that I didn’t do anything to secure the Capitol. Let’s be clear,” Haley said. “I wasn’t in the Capitol on Jan. 6. I wasn’t in office on Jan. 6. He mentioned it three times, he got confused.”

    PolitiFact has fact-checked multiple misleading claims about Pelosi’s role regarding Capitol security on Jan. 6 and have found that this responsibility is shared, it is not solely the responsibility of the Speaker.

    At her Peterborough rally, Haley also repeated many claims we’ve previously fact-checked, including statistics about illegal immigration and fentanyl seizures. 

    One voter PolitiFact spoke to outside the event told us she valued accuracy and wanted to know the context behind claims she often hears from candidates, including Haley.

    Here are some of the statistics Haley cited, along with context.

    “We had more fentanyl cross the border last year, that would kill every single American.” 

    There’s no way to know how much fentanyl crossed the border into the U.S. But, we do know how much fentanyl was stopped from getting into the country — 27,000 pounds in fiscal year 2023, which ended Sept. 30.

    Fentanyl is a powerful synthetic opioid up to 100 times more potent than morphine. Its potency is what makes it so lethal. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency says 2 milligrams of fentanyl can be deadly for an adult. That means border officials seized more than enough fentanyl to kill every American (the estimated U.S. population is more than 333 million). 

    Yet, fentanyl’s lethality can vary based on its purity and a person’s height, weight and tolerance from past exposure, Timothy J. Pifer, director of the New Hampshire State Police Forensic Laboratory, told PolitiFact in 2019. 

    Also, just because enough fentanyl has been seized to kill every American does not mean every American has the same chance of dying of a fentanyl overdose, Dr. Andrew Stolbach, a toxicologist and emergency doctor at the Johns Hopkins Hospital, previously told us. 

    “That would assume that all that drug was somehow going to get into everybody,” Stolbach said. 

    Fentanyl overdoses are the “No. 1 cause of death for adults 18 to 45.”

    We rated a similar claim Mostly True.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collects data on the leading causes of death nationwide, but it doesn’t keep tabs on which drugs cause the most fatalities. 

    Instead, fentanyl deaths fall under the broader category of “other synthetic narcotics,” Brian Tsai, a spokesperson with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics Public Affairs Office told PolitiFact in April. Fentanyl comprises about 90% of the deaths in that narcotics category, Tsai said. 

    For the 18 to 45 age group, Tsai said, the leading cause of death was “accidents (unintentional injuries).” Within the several subcategories under “unintentional injuries,” “unintentional drug overdoses,” is the largest proportion, and “synthetic narcotics,” is the No. 1 category. 

    Medical experts previously told PolitiFact that although the statistic is likely right, data collection limitations make it difficult to know with certainty. 

    “Only 31% of eighth graders in our country are proficient in reading. Only 27% of eighth graders in our country are proficient in math.”

    Haley’s statistics are accurate.

    To compare test scores among the states, researchers and politicians typically point to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which tests public school students’ progress in a variety of subjects, including English and math. The national tests focus on certain grade levels and are administered every other year.

    In 2022, 31% of eighth grade students performed at or above the  NAEP proficient level on the reading assessment, which was 3 percentage points lower compared with 2019, the previous assessment year.

    In 2022, the percentage of eighth-grade students performing at or above the NAEP proficient level in mathematics was 26% .

    Martin West, an education professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, told Education Week in October 2022 that fourth and eighth grade reading and math NAEP scores “are down substantially.”

    “And they are down nearly everywhere: Every state (and the District of Columbia) saw scores drop by a statistically significant amount on at least one of the four tests administered this spring,” said West, a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees NAEP.

    Proficient on NAEP does not mean grade level performance — it’s significantly above that. “Using NAEP’s proficient level as a basis for education policy is a bad idea.”

    Trump “actually said he wants to raise the retirement age to 70.”

    Haley omits that Trump said this decades ago and this has not been his position for years.

    Trump co-wrote the book “The America We Deserve,” which was published in January 2000 as he considered a bid for president as a Reform Party candidate. Weeks later, Trump said he wouldn’t run, declaring the Reform Party a “total mess.”

    Fiscal responsibility was one of the book’s themes, and Trump warned that the Social Security trust fund would run out by 2030. (More than two decades later, the expected depletion date is around 2034, barring congressional action.)

    “We can also raise the age for receipt of full Social Security benefits to seventy. This proposal would not include anyone who is currently retired or about to retire,” the book said. 

    Trump wrote: “A firm limit at age seventy makes sense for people now under forty. We’re living longer. We’re working longer. New medicines are extending healthy human life.”

    RELATED: New Hampshire dispatch: Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and the tales of town halls

    RELATED: Trump’s misleading claim that Haley is seeking Democrats to ‘infiltrate’ New Hampshire’s GOP primary

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Does U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil back cutting Social Security and Medicare?

    PolitiFact – Does U.S. Rep. Bryan Steil back cutting Social Security and Medicare?

    [ad_1]

    Two familiar election-year policy topics have returned to the race for the 1st Congressional District — Medicare and Social Security. 

    Voters in the southern Wisconsin district, where U.S. Bryan Steil is running for a fourth term, may have started seeing a television ad aimed at his stances on the programs.

    The spot was launched Jan. 10, 2024 by Opportunity Wisconsin, a liberal group that describes itself as “a coalition of Wisconsin residents fighting for an economy that works for working people.”

    The ad features a Navy veteran from Racine, identified only as Jim, who expresses concerns about Steil’s positions on the benefits.

    “Bryan Steil is part of a group that wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, that would be devastating,” Jim says. “I earned my Social Security and Medicare benefits. Not given, not entitled, earned. Bryan Steil has no business touching them.”

    The position of Steil and other Republicans on Social Security and Medicare is likely to remain a frequent topic in campaign advertising ahead of the 2024 elections. 

    And, it could be a continued point of focus among Steil’s Democratic challengers.

    Federal lawmakers have struggled to agree on how to reform the programs, which could run out of money to pay out benefits in the early 2030s. 

    While the ad features “Jim,” we’re checking Opportunity Wisconsin, the group making the claim. Let’s take a look at where Steil stands on cuts to Social Security and Medicare. 

    Steil is part of group that looked at cuts to Social Security, but doesn’t support their plan

    By way of backup, Opportunity Wisconsin’s news release announcing the ads notes that Steil is part of the Republican Study Committee, “which has proposed a federal budget which would cut $718 billion from Social Security, raise the retirement age, and more.”

    Out of the gate, it’s worth noting that nearly 80% of House Republicans are part of that conservative caucus. Along with Steil, its members include U.S. Reps. Scott Fitzgerald, Glenn Grothman and Tom Tiffany of Wisconsin.

    PolitiFact National looked into the group’s most recent budget proposal when President Joe Biden made a similar claim that Republicans wanted to cut Social Security benefits. 

    That fact-check noted the plan was not universally endorsed by Republicans, didn’t provide a lot of detail, and was far from certain to be enacted. 

    Additionally, Steil was not one of the 14 members whose signature is on the plan, though Tiffany’s is.

    Chavonne Ludick, Steil’s communications director, said the representative opposes the budget proposal that is mentioned in the ad, which she called “recklessly misleading.”

    “While the congressman is a member of the Republican Study Committee, the 177 members of the group have widely differing views on many issues,” Ludick said. “Congressman Steil strongly supports Social Security and Medicare and opposes plans to cut them.”

    She said even if it came up for a vote, Steil “would vote against it and recommend others do the same.” 

    We’ve established that Steil is part of the Republican Study Committee, as Opportunity Wisconsin states. But his office says he doesn’t support the plan and wouldn’t vote for it. 

    So, there is a connection to Steil, but not a strong one.

    Plan would raise retirement age, but not cut benefits for people in or near retirement

    There are other problems with the ad, especially in how it characterizes the plan itself. Remember that Jim stressed he earned his benefits and Stiel “has no business touching them.”

    But the plan itself states: “We will not now or ever support cutting or delaying retirement benefits for any senior in or near retirement.”

    Rather, as the earlier fact-check noted, the plan would make changes to the benefit formula for people who aren’t near retirement and are on the higher end of the income scale.

    And it would make “modest adjustments” to the retirement age to receive full benefits “to account for increases in life expectancy.” That would cut benefits for some people, the fact-check explained.

    Roll Call reported that the committee was looking at raising the age to 69, for those who turn 62 in 2033.

    Now, what about the Medicare piece of the plan?

    The proposal calls for a “premium support model” that would subsidize private plans that would compete with Medicare. The caucus claimed their plans would lower premiums for seniors and would not cut benefits. 

    In a 2014 USA TODAY fact-check, we noted that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the idea — floated by then-U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin — could lead to higher costs for beneficiaries.

    Sam Roecker, communications director for Opportunity Wisconsin, provided additional sources regarding Steil’s stances on Medicare, including votes against capping insulin costs at $35 for program recipients. 

    But that’s not the same as cutting benefits, as the ad suggests.

    Our ruling

    An Opportunity Wisconsin ad depicts a retiree who is concerned that Rep. Bryan Steil could cut his Social Security and Medicare benefits. 

    He says in part: “Bryan Steil is part of a group that wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, that would be devastating.” 

    Steil is part of the Republican Study Committee, which authored a plan aimed at addressing future Social Security and Medicare shortfalls, but so are many other House Republicans. 

    Importantly, Steil’s office says he opposes the plan and would vote against it. 

    Even if he did back the changes, the plan said it wouldn’t cut benefits for people in or near retirement, like the voter shown in the ad. 

    Our definition of Mostly False is “the statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.”

    That fits here.

     

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Trump ad says Nikki Haley’s plan would cut Social Security for 82% of Americans. That’s False

    PolitiFact – Trump ad says Nikki Haley’s plan would cut Social Security for 82% of Americans. That’s False

    [ad_1]

    Former President Donald Trump continues to attack Nikki Haley’s position on Social Security as he tries to siphon support from her in New Hampshire ahead of the state’s Jan. 23 presidential primary. 

    “Americans were promised a secure retirement. Nikki Haley’s plan ends that,” a narrator says in a new Trump campaign ad airing in the Granite State. “Haley’s plan cuts Social Security benefits for 82% of Americans.” 

    The 30-second spot features older people and a clip of Haley, Trump’s former U.N. ambassador, responding to a question about how she would address entitlement programs. “We say the rules have changed,” Haley says in the ad. “We change retirement age to reflect life expectancy. What we do know is 65 is way too low, and we need to increase that.”

    A still from Donald Trump’s 2024 campaign ad “Threat from Within.” (Screenshot from YouTube)

    We know from a previous fact-check that this excerpt of Haley’s quote is missing context; Haley specified that the rules should change for younger Americans, not current or imminent beneficiaries.

    But would her plan, as this new Trump ad claims, cut Social Security benefits for 82% of Americans — or roughly 272 million people? 

    No. The Trump ad is an extreme exaggeration of how many Americans would be affected by Haley’s plans for Social Security. It would not affect retirees or people nearing retirement.

    Trump’s campaign didn’t respond to PolitiFact about its statistic’s source. The ad cites a CNN article that doesn’t support the claim.

    The 82% appears to reference a rough estimate of the total Americans eligible for Social Security benefits. (Some people are not included because they receive Social Security disability insurance or are ineligible for Social Security, such as infrequent workers, for example.)

    Haley has never advocated cutting all Social Security benefits for everyone currently in that 82%. Trump’s ad gives the false impression that Haley’s plan would end or cut into older Americans’ Social Security retirement. Haley’s more limited plan wouldn’t apply to current beneficiaries or anyone nearing retirement.

    Haley has repeatedly said she would support increasing the age for Americans in their 20s, which she explained in the same interview that Trump’s ad misleadingly clipped. “The way we deal with it, is we don’t touch anyone’s retirement or anyone who’s been promised in,” Haley said in the Aug. 24 Bloomberg News interview. “But we go to people like my kids in their 20s, when they’re coming into the system, and we say the rules have changed.”

    How the retirement age affects Social Security benefits

    The retirement age for collecting full Social Security benefits is 67 for Americans born in 1960 and later and age 65 for people born before.

    Americans who choose to collect their benefits early (which they can do at 62) receive smaller monthly payments. This offsets the additional checks they’ll receive over their lifetimes. For example, people who collect Social Security benefits at age 64 instead of 67 receive 80% of their full monthly benefit. People who retire at 62 receive 70% of their full monthly benefit. 

    Raising the full retirement age means people who retire before the new cutoff would receive smaller benefits, and people who opt to wait for full benefits will have to retire later. 

    “As the system’s retirement age increases, everyone’s benefits fall a bit, depending on the age you start collecting,” said Richard Johnson, director of the Urban Institute’s program on retirement policy.

    It’s not clear what year or age Haley’s proposal would kick in. But based on population estimates from the 2022 U.S. Census, if people ages 25 and older were excluded from a retirement age increase, which is in line with Haley’s pitch, her plan would likely reduce benefits for 26% of Americans alive today — decades from now. 

    Haley’s proposal ties the increased age requirement to gains in average U.S. life expectancy, which ticked up in 2022 after two years of decreases. (Not everyone is expected to live longer, though — research shows that life expectancy is shorter for people with lower socioeconomic status, — so, raising the retirement age based on that metric would reduce the years they’d receive Social Security benefits.) 

    The kicker in Trump’s attack 

    Trump is hitting Haley for a similar position that he once held. In his 2000 book “The America We Deserve,” Trump warned that the Social Security trust fund would run out in decades (which was accurate then and now). He suggested raising the retirement age to 70.  

    “A firm limit at age seventy makes sense for people now under forty,” Trump wrote. “We’re living longer. We’re working longer. New medicines are extending healthy human life. Besides, how many times will you really want to take that trailer to the Grand Canyon? The way the workweek is going, it will probably be down to about twenty-five hours by then anyway. This is a sacrifice I think we all can make.”

    Trump no longer supports raising the retirement age and has vowed he wouldn’t make any cuts to the program. But he hasn’t offered a plan that would keep the Social Security trust fund solvent. 

    Johnson said that “doing nothing at all” would mean “all beneficiaries, including those with disability benefits, would suffer.”

    Gary Burtless, Brookings Institution economist and senior fellow, said Haley’s plan wouldn’t reduce costs until today’s 20-somethings reach their early 60s, so it would have no impact on Social Security’s funding shortfall in the next 10 years, when the reserve fund is expected to be depleted.

    Our ruling

    A Trump campaign ad claimed Haley’s plan “cuts Social Security benefits for 82% of Americans.”

    The number is wrong. Haley’s plan wouldn’t affect current beneficiaries or Americans anywhere close to retiring, let alone 82% of the U.S. population. 

    While most proposals that call for increasing the retirement age represent a benefit cut for Social Security beneficiaries, Haley’s plan would apply to Americans in their 20s and younger. If people ages 25 and older were excluded from her proposed retirement age increase, that would represent benefit cuts for around 26% of Americans alive today — 40 years from now.

    We rate Trump’s claim False. 

    PolitiFact Copy Chief Matthew Crowley contributed to this report.  

    Related: Who’s right on life expectancy, Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley? Both 

    Related: Donald Trump omits context on Nikki Haley’s comments about US retirement age being too low,

    Related: Trump suggested raising Social Security retirement age in 2000, but hasn’t backed it since

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The End Is Coming for Trump’s GOP Rivals

    The End Is Coming for Trump’s GOP Rivals

    [ad_1]

    The arctic chill that upended the final weekend of the Iowa Republican caucus provided a fitting end to a contest that has seemed frozen in place for months.

    This caucus has felt unusually lifeless, not only because former President Donald Trump has maintained an imposing and seemingly unshakable lead in the polls. That advantage was confirmed late Saturday night when the Des Moines Register, NBC, and Mediacom Iowa released their highly anticipated final pre-caucus poll showing Trump at 48 percent and, in a distant battle for second place, Nikki Haley at 20 percent and Ron DeSantis at 16 percent.

    The caucus has also lacked energy because Trump’s shrinking field of rivals has never appeared to have the heart for making an all-out case against him. “I think there was actually a decent electorate that had supported Trump in the past but were interested in looking for somebody else,” Douglas Gross, a longtime GOP activist who chaired Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign in Iowa, told me. But neither DeSantis nor Haley, he adds, found a message that dislodged nearly enough of them from the front-runner. “Trump has run as an incumbent, if you will, and dominated the media so skillfully that it took a lot of the energy out of the race,” Gross said.

    In retrospect, the constrictive boundaries for the GOP race were established when the candidates gathered for their first debate last August (without Trump, who has refused to attend any debate). The crucial moment came when Bret Baier, from Fox News Channel, asked the contenders whether they would support Trump as the nominee even if he was convicted of a crime “in a court of law.” All the contenders onstage raised their hand to indicate they would, except for Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson, two long shots at the periphery of the race. With that declaration, the candidates effectively placed the question of whether Trump is fit to be president again—the most important issue facing Republicans in 2024—out of bounds.

    That collective failure led to Christie’s withering moral judgment on the field when he quit the race last week: “Anyone who is unwilling to say that he is unfit to be president of the United States is unfit themselves to be president of the United States.” But even in practical political terms, the choice not to directly address Trump’s fitness left his principal rivals scrambling to find an alternative way to contrast with the front-runner.

    Over time, DeSantis has built a coherent critique of Trump, though a very idiosyncratic one. DeSantis runs at Trump from the right, insisting that the man who devised and articulated the “America First” agenda can no longer be trusted to advance it. In his final appearances across Iowa, his CNN debate with Haley last week, and a Fox town hall, DeSantis criticized Trump’s presidential record and 2024 agenda as insufficiently conservative on abortion, LGBTQ rights, federal spending, confronting the bureaucracy, and shutting down the country during the pandemic. He has even accused Trump of failing to deport enough undocumented immigrants and failing to construct enough of his signature border wall.

    Read: Trump is coming for Obamacare again

    On issues where politicians in the center or left charge Trump with extremism, DeSantis inverts the accusation: The problem, he argues, is that Trump wasn’t extreme enough. The moment that best encapsulated DeSantis’s approach came in last week’s CNN debate. At one point, the moderators asked him about the claim from Trump’s lawyer that he cannot be prosecuted for any presidential action—including ordering the assassination of a political rival—unless he was first impeached and convicted. DeSantis insisted the problem was that in office, Trump was too restrained in using unilateral presidential authority. He complained that Trump failed to call in the National Guard over the objections of local officials to squelch civil unrest in the Black Lives Matter protests following the 2020 murder of George Floyd. When DeSantis visited campaign volunteers last Friday, he indignantly complained “it’s just not true” that he has gone easy on Trump in these final days. “If you watched the debate,” DeSantis told reporters, “I hit on BLM, not building the wall, the debt, not draining the swamp, Fauci, all those things.”

    Perhaps the prospect of impending defeat has concentrated the mind, but DeSantis in his closing trek across Iowa has offered perceptive explanations for why these attacks against Trump have sputtered. One is that Trump stifled the debates by refusing to participate in them. “It’s different for me to just be doing that to a camera versus him being right there,” DeSantis told reporters. “When you have a clash, then you guys have to cover it, and it becomes something that people start to talk about.” The other problem, he maintained, was that conservative media like Fox News act as “a praetorian guard” that suppresses criticism of Trump, even from the right.

    Those are compelling observations, but incomplete as an explanation. DeSantis’s larger problem may be that the universe of voters that wants Trumpism but doesn’t think Trump can be relied on to deliver it is much smaller than the Florida governor had hoped. One top Trump adviser told me that the fights Trump engaged in as president make it almost impossible to convince conservatives he’s not really one of them. Bob Vander Plaats, a prominent Iowa evangelical leader who has endorsed DeSantis, likewise told me that amid all of Trump’s battles with the left, it’s easier to try to convince evangelical conservatives that the former president can’t win in November than that he has abandoned their causes.

    The analogy I’ve used for DeSantis’s strategy is that Trump is like a Mack truck barreling down the far-right lane of American politics, and that rather than trying to pass in all the space he’s left in the center of the road, DeSantis has tried to squeeze past him on the right shoulder. There’s just not a lot of room there.

    Even so, DeSantis’s complaints about Trump look like a closing argument from Perry Mason compared with the muffled, gauzy case that Haley has presented against him. DeSantis’s choice to run to Trump’s right created a vacuum that Haley, largely through effective performances at the early debates, has filled with the elements of the GOP coalition that have always been most dubious of Trump: moderates, suburbanites, college-educated voters. But that isn’t a coalition nearly big enough to win. And she has walked on eggshells in trying to reach beyond that universe to the Republican voters who are generally favorable toward Trump but began the race possibly open to an alternative—what the veteran GOP pollster Whit Ayres calls the “maybe Trump” constituency.

    The most notable thing in how Haley talks about Trump is that she almost always avoids value judgments. It’s time for generational change, she will say, or I will be a stronger general-election candidate who will sweep in more Republican candidates up and down the ballot.

    Read: The real reason Republicans couldn’t kill Obamacare

    At last week’s CNN debate, Haley turned up the dial when she that said of course Trump lost the 2020 election; that January 6 was a “terrible day”; and that Trump’s claims of absolute immunity were “ridiculous.” Those pointed comments probably offered a momentary glimpse of what she actually thinks about him. But in the crucial days before the caucus, Haley has reverted to her careful, values-free dissents. At one town hall conducted over telephone late last week, she said the “hard truths” Republicans had to face were that, although “President Trump was the right president at the right time” and “I agree with a lot of his policies,” the fact remained that “rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him.” Talk about taking off the gloves.

    Jennifer Horn, the former Republican Party chair in New Hampshire who has become a fierce Trump critic, told me, “There’s no moral or ethical judgment against Trump from her. From anyone, really, but we’re talking about her. She says chaos follows him ‘rightly or wrongly.’ Who cares? Nobody cares about chaos. That’s not the issue with Trump. He’s crooked; he’s criminal; he incited an insurrection. That’s the case against Trump. And if his so-called strongest opponent won’t make the case against Trump, why should voters?”

    Gross, the longtime GOP activist, is supporting Haley, but even he is perplexed by her reluctance to articulate a stronger critique of the front-runner. “I don’t know what her argument is,” Gross told me. “I guess it’s: Get rid of the chaos. She’s got to make a strong case about why she’s the alternative, and it’s got to include some element of judgment.”

    The reluctance of DeSantis and Haley to fully confront the former president has created an utterly asymmetrical campaign battlefield because Trump has displayed no hesitation about attacking either of them. The super PAC associated with Trump’s campaign spent months pounding DeSantis on issues including supporting statehood for Puerto Rico and backing cuts in Social Security, and in recent weeks, Trump’s camp has run ads accusing Haley of raising taxes and being weak on immigration. In response, DeSantis and Haley have spent significantly more money attacking each other than criticizing, or even rebutting, Trump. Rob Pyers, an analyst with the nonpartisan California Target Book, has calculated that the principal super PAC supporting Trump has spent $32 million combined in ads against Haley and DeSantis; they have pummeled each other with a combined $38 million in negative ads from the super PACs associated with their campaigns. Meanwhile, the Haley and DeSantis super PACs have spent only a little more than $1 million in ads targeting Trump, who is leading them by as much as 50 points in national polls.

    Haley’s sharpest retort to any of Trump’s attacks has been to say he’s misrepresenting her record. During the CNN debate, Haley metronomically touted a website called DeSantislies.com, but if she has a similar page up about Trump, she hasn’t mentioned it. (Her campaign didn’t respond to a query about whether it plans to establish such a site.)

    “Calling him a liar right now is her strongest pushback, but I just don’t think GOP voters care about liars,” Horn told me. “If she engaged in a real battle with him for these last days [before New Hampshire], that would be fascinating to see. The fact that she’s not pushing back, the fact that she’s not running the strongest possible campaign as she’s coming down the stretch here, makes me wonder if she is as uncertain of her ability to win as I am.”

    Some Republican strategists are sympathetic to this careful approach to Trump, especially from Haley. A former top aide to one of Trump’s main rivals in the 2016 race told me that “nobody has found a message you can put on TV that makes Republicans like Trump less.” Some other veterans of earlier GOP contests believe that Haley and DeSantis were justified in initially trying to eclipse the other and create a one-on-one race with Trump. And for Haley, there’s also at least some argument for preserving her strongest case against Trump for the January 23 New Hampshire primary, where a more moderate electorate may be more receptive than the conservative, heavily evangelical population that usually turns out for the caucus.

    “She has to draw much sharper contrasts,” Gross told me. “And to be fair to her, once she gets out of here, maybe she will. What she strikes me as is incredibly disciplined and calculating. So, I do think you’re going to see modulation.”

    DeSantis has the most to lose in Iowa, because a poor showing will almost certainly end his campaign, even if he tries to insist otherwise for a few weeks. For Haley, the results aren’t as important because whatever happens here, she will have another opportunity to create momentum in New Hampshire, where polls have shown her rising even as DeSantis craters. Still, if Haley is unable or unwilling to deliver a more persuasive argument against Trump, she too will quickly find herself with no realistic hope of overtaking the front-runner, whose lead in national polls of Republican voters continues to grow. That’s one thing common to winter in both Iowa and New Hampshire: It gets dark early.

    [ad_2]

    Ronald Brownstein

    Source link

  • Spousal Social Security Benefits: 3 Things All Retired Couples Should Know

    Spousal Social Security Benefits: 3 Things All Retired Couples Should Know

    [ad_1]

    Social Security has been one of the most important social programs in the U.S. for decades. For retirement specifically, it provides vital income to millions of Americans across the country. After years of paying Social Security taxes, beneficiaries reap the rewards with a financial safety net of sorts.

    However, these benefits aren’t restricted only to people who worked and paid taxes over the years. For example, Social Security allows spousal benefits to support non-working or low-earning spouses in retirement. For any couple that is nearing or in retirement and putting financial plans in place, here are three things they should know about Social Security spousal benefits.

    Two gold rings on top of a Social Security card.

    Image source: Getty Images.

    1. How Social Security spousal benefits work

    Social Security typically calculates a recipient’s monthly benefits using a formula that factors in their 35 highest-earning years of income. But a spouse can receive Social Security benefits based on their partner’s earning record if they’re at least 62 years old or caring for a child under 16 or with a disability.

    Assuming the person claiming spousal benefits is at full retirement age, they’re eligible to receive 50% of their spouse’s primary insurance amount too.

    For example, if spouse A’s earnings record gives them a monthly benefit of $2,000 at their full retirement age, spouse B could receive up to $1,000 monthly as well. The exact amount will depend on the age at which spouse B claims benefits.

    2. The impact of claiming benefits early or late

    Chart showing Social Security full retirement ages by birth year.Chart showing Social Security full retirement ages by birth year.

    Chart showing Social Security full retirement ages by birth year.

    Your full retirement age is one of the most important numbers related to Social Security because it tells you when you’re eligible to receive your primary insurance amount. However, you don’t have to claim benefits at your full retirement age; you can claim them early (which reduces your payout) or delay (which increases your payout).

    Claiming Social Security benefits early affects a spouse and their partner receiving spousal benefits in different ways.

    Looking first at the person claiming based on their work record, their benefits are reduced by 5/9 of 1% each month before their full retirement age, up to 36 months. Each month after that further reduces benefits by 5/12 of 1%. Here’s an example: Someone with a full retirement age of 67 who claims benefits at 62 will see their monthly benefit reduced 30% from their primary insurance amount.

    For the person receiving spousal benefits, benefits are reduced by 25/36 of 1% each month before their full retirement age, up to 36 months, and then they go down 5/12 of 1% each month thereafter. So a person with the same full retirement age (67) claiming spousal benefits at 62 would see their checks reduced 35%.

    Although benefits typically increase if you wait beyond your full retirement age, these delayed retirement credits don’t apply to spousal benefits.

    3. What happens if a spouse passes away

    Social Security spousal and survivors benefits can be closely linked as the latter extends critical financial assistance after a partner has passed away.

    If you’re claiming spousal benefits when your partner passes away, Social Security will convert your spousal benefits to survivors benefits. Survivors benefits make you eligible to receive up to 100% of your deceased spouse’s benefit, including any delayed retirement credits they earned prior to their passing. A widow or widower can begin receiving survivors benefits at age 60 (50 if dealing with a disability), but as in the case with spousal benefits, they’ll be reduced if claimed before full retirement age.

    You can’t simultaneously receive spousal and survivors benefits, only whichever is higher. Since spousal benefits max out at 50% of the partner’s primary insurance amount, survivors benefits are typically the higher-paying option.

    The $21,756 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
    If you’re like most Americans, you’re a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known “Social Security secrets” could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. For example: one easy trick could pay you as much as $21,756 more… each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we’re all after. Simply click here to discover how to learn more about these strategies.

    The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

    Spousal Social Security Benefits: 3 Things All Retired Couples Should Know was originally published by The Motley Fool

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘They should plan on their retirement age being increased’: Nikki Haley said at the recent GOP debate that she wants to raise the retirement age above 67 — should you be worried?

    ‘They should plan on their retirement age being increased’: Nikki Haley said at the recent GOP debate that she wants to raise the retirement age above 67 — should you be worried?

    [ad_1]

    ‘They should plan on their retirement age being increased’: Nikki Haley said at the recent GOP debate that she wants to raise the retirement age above 67 — should you be worried?

    The first Republican presidential primary debate of 2024 showcased a stark divide between Donald Trump’s challengers: Social Security.

    Former governor of South Carolina Nikki Haley has maintained throughout her campaign that she’s open to raising the retirement age for younger people.

    Don’t miss

    In the Jan. 10 debate, moderator Jake Tapper asked Haley point-blank if people in their 20s should expect to work into their 70s.

    “They should plan on their retirement age being increased, yes,” Haley said.

    Haley’s opponent, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, vehemently disagreed with her on raising the retirement age, pointing out that retirees have been paying into Social Security their whole lives and deserve to receive it.

    “It’s not a welfare program, you’re being taxed for this your whole life,” he said.

    What’s behind Haley’s and DeSantis’ views on Social Security? And should you be worried if either receives the GOP nomination?

    Why does Haley want to raise the retirement age?

    Haley assured current and soon-to-be-retirees that they will receive their full Social Security entitlement at the current retirement age of 67. But she remained vague during the debate about the exact age she would increase it to.

    “We want to make sure that everybody who was promised, gets it,” she said. “But we also want to make sure our kids have something when they get it too.”

    Haley’s statements come in light of the fact that Social Security may not be able to hand out full entitlements in the near future. According to this year’s Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports, the fund supporting Social Security will, at current funding levels, only be able to pay 100% of “scheduled benefits until 2033.” After that, the funds will become “depleted” and older Americans would only receive 77% of their total scheduled benefits.

    DeSantis’ take

    One big reason why DeSantis doesn’t agree with Haley about raising the retirement age is life expectancy. Haley insists that life expectancy is increasing, so raising the retirement age just makes sense. But DeSantis says that this isn’t true: life expectancy has decreased in the past five years.

    “I will never raise the retirement age in the face of declining life expectancy,” DeSantis said in the debate. “That hurts blue collar folks. You get taxed your entire life, life expectancy’s down, you may not even be recouping very many benefits.”

    Both are right — to an extent. Longer life spans tend to belong to rich Americans, such as Haley and DeSantis. Poorer Americans don’t tend to see the same life expectancy increases as wealthier Americans, according to a 2021 paper from the Congressional Research Service.

    Read more: Millions of Americans are in massive debt in the face of rising rates. Here’s how to take a break from debt this month

    But something needs to be done

    Haley isn’t wrong to raise the alarm bells over Social Security’s impending insolvency. And even current benefits often aren’t enough for many seniors to live on.

    But some commentators have other ideas for improving Social Security’s fiscal position. Nobel Memorial Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman wrote in a recent New York Times column that the best way to increase Social Security funds is to do what the majority of GOP candidates refuse to do: raise taxes.

    The U.S. has one of the lowest tax revenue rates in the world, according to the OECD. Higher taxes are the way that countries like Canada or Denmark provide more health care and financial support for retirees. You may not like higher taxes, but it could help out with your retirement savings long-term.

    In the meantime, the best thing you can do is make sure that you have enough money in the bank to fund your own retirement.

    What to read next

    This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Donald Trump omits context on Nikki Haley’s comments about US retirement age being too low

    PolitiFact – Donald Trump omits context on Nikki Haley’s comments about US retirement age being too low

    [ad_1]

    Days before voting starts in the Iowa caucuses, former President Donald Trump has his eyes trained on Nikki Haley, his closest Republican rival in the 2024 presidential campaign. 

    Trump targeted the former South Carolina governor during a Jan. 6 campaign stop in Newton, Iowa, and claimed she wants to cut Social Security and Medicare and raise the retirement age. 

    “Nikki says the retirement age at 65 is way too low, it must be much higher,” Trump said of his former U.N. ambassador.

    That characterization lacks context. Haley has recently said the federal U.S. retirement age, at which Americans would receive Social Security and Medicare benefits, is “way too low.” But she said it should be raised in line with longer life expectancy, and she did not support changing the age for current beneficiaries or those nearing retirement.

    In an Aug. 24 Bloomberg Markets interview, Haley said the U.S. should increase the retirement age to help prevent Social Security and Medicare from becoming insolvent. 

    “The way we deal with it, is we don’t touch anyone’s retirement or anyone who’s been promised in, but we go to people like my kids in their twenties, when they’re coming into the system, and we say the rules have changed,” Haley told Joe Mathieu, a Washington correspondent for Bloomberg TV and radio. “We change retirement age to reflect life expectancy. Instead of cost-of-living increases, we do it based on inflation. We limit the benefits on the wealthy and we expand Medicare advantage plans.”

    When Mathieu asked which “right age” she would recommend, Haley said it would need to be calculated, but that 65 “is way too low,” and needs to be increased according to life expectancy. 

    Although Haley cited 65 as the retirement age, that’s for people born before 1960. In 1983, Congress upped the age when Americans can receive full retirement benefits through Social Security from 65 to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.

    U.S. life expectancy dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic, but has shown signs of rebounding, increasing from 76.4 years in 2021 to 77.5 in 2022, according to federal data.

    Here are other instances in which Haley discussed the U.S.’ retirement age during her presidential campaign:

    • Sept. 22 at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics in Manchester, New Hampshire: “I’ll raise the retirement age — only for younger people who are just entering the system. Americans are living 15 years longer than they were in the 1930s. If we don’t get out of the 20th century mindset, Social Security and Medicare won’t survive the first half of the 21st century.”

    • Nov. 8 at the third Republican presidential debate in Miami: “Those that have been promised, should keep it. But for, like my kids in their 20s, you go and you say, ‘We are going to change the rules.’ You change the retirement age for them.” 

    On Medicare, Haley has proposed expanding Medicare Advantage, a type of Medicare health plan offered by approved private companies. The government pays the companies to cover Medicare benefits.

    Our ruling

    Trump claimed that Haley “says the retirement age at 65 is way too low.”

    This is missing context. When Haley said the federal retirement age of 65 was “way too low” she wasn’t talking about current Social Security beneficiaries or people who are close to retiring. She would propose raising the retirement age for younger people, in line with longer life expectancy. 

    Trump’s statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. We rate his claim Half True.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Does Fidelity's 45% Rule Still Hold Up?

    Does Fidelity's 45% Rule Still Hold Up?

    [ad_1]

    Among retirement rules of thumb, saving 10 times your salary by 67 reigns supreme. But workers should also have another way by planning for their savings to provide 45% of their pretax, preretirement income.

    Financial services giant Fidelity has a rule for retirement savings you may have heard of: Have 10 times your annual salary saved for retirement by age 67. This oft-cited guideline can help you identify a retirement savings goal, but it doesn’t fully account for how much of those savings will cover in retirement.

    Enter Fidelity’s 45% rule, which states that your retirement savings should generate about 45% of your pretax, pre-retirement income each year, with Social Security benefits covering the rest of your spending needs.

    A financial advisor can analyze your income needs and help you plan for retirement. Find an advisor today.

    The financial services firm analyzed spending data for working people between 50 and 65 years old and found that most retirees need to replace between 55% and 80% of their pre-retirement income in order to preserve their current lifestyle. Because retirees have lower day-to-day expenses and don’t typically contribute to retirement accounts, their income requirements are lower than people who are still working.

    As a result, a retiree who was earning $100,000 a year would need between $55,000 and $80,000 per year in Social Security benefits and savings withdrawals (including pension benefits) to continue their current lifestyle.

    Fidelity’s 45% guideline dictates that a retiree’s nest egg should be large enough to replace 45% of their pre-retirement, pretax income each year. Following this rule, the same retiree who was earning $100,000 per year would need enough saved up to spend $45,000 a year, in addition to his Social Security benefits, to fund his lifestyle. Assuming the person lives another 25 years after reaching retirement age, this person would need $1.125 million in savings.

    If you’re ready to be matched with local advisors that can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now.

    Pre-Retirement Income Plays an Important Role

    Among retirement rules of thumb, saving 10 times your salary by 67 reigns supreme. But workers should also have another way by planning for their savings to provide 45% of their pretax, preretirement income. Among retirement rules of thumb, saving 10 times your salary by 67 reigns supreme. But workers should also have another way by planning for their savings to provide 45% of their pretax, preretirement income.

    Among retirement rules of thumb, saving 10 times your salary by 67 reigns supreme. But workers should also have another way by planning for their savings to provide 45% of their pretax, preretirement income.

    But all retirement spending plans aren’t equal. Those who earned less money during their careers will have less saved than high earners, and as a result, will need to replace a larger proportion of their pre-retirement income.

    “Your salary plays a big role in determining what percentage of your income you will need to replace in retirement,” Fidelity wrote in its most recent Viewpoints. “People with higher incomes tend to spend a small portion of their income during their working years, and that means a lower income replacement goal in percentage terms to maintain their lifestyle in retirement.”

    According to Fidelity, a person who makes $50,000 per year would need savings and Social Security to replace approximately 80% of his income in retirement. An individual earning $200,000, however, could get by in retirement by replacing just 60%.

    Social Security plays a less significant role in the retirement plans of higher-earning workers. Consider the table below:

    Replacing Income Using Fidelity’s 45% Rule Pre-Retirement Income Replacement Rate From Savings Replacement Rate From Social Security Total Replacement Rate $50,000 45% 35% 80% $100,000 45% 27% 72% $200,000 45% 16% 61% $300,000 44% 11% 55%

    According to Fidelity, a retiree who made $50,000 per year would receive 35% of that income via Social Security. But a high-earning individual who made $300,000 per year would only see 11% of his income replaced by Social Security benefits. While higher-earning individuals don’t need to replace as much of their pre-retirement income, retirement savings plays a more important role for these types of retirees.

    Bottom Line

    Among retirement rules of thumb, saving 10 times your salary by 67 reigns supreme. But workers should also have another way of figuring: planning for their savings to provide 45% of their pretax, preretirement income. Among retirement rules of thumb, saving 10 times your salary by 67 reigns supreme. But workers should also have another way of figuring: planning for their savings to provide 45% of their pretax, preretirement income.

    Among retirement rules of thumb, saving 10 times your salary by 67 reigns supreme. But workers should also have another way of figuring: planning for their savings to provide 45% of their pretax, preretirement income.

    Fidelity’s 10x rule of thumb is a nifty guideline to follow as you save for retirement over the course of many decades. But when retirement arrives, Fidelity recommends that your savings should cover 45% of your income needs, with Social Security covering the rest. As a result, the average retiree will need to replace between 55% and 80% of his pre-retirement, pretax income to maintain his current lifestyle.

    Tips for Retirement Planning

    • A financial advisor can be an invaluable resource when it comes to planning for retirement. Whether it’s saving in tax-advantaged accounts or mapping out your income needs, an advisor can help you with your retirement planning needs.

      Finding a qualified financial advisor doesn’t have to be hard. SmartAsset’s free tool matches you with up to three financial advisors who serve your area, and you can interview your advisor matches at no cost to decide which one is right for you. If you’re ready to find an advisor who can help you achieve your financial goals, get started now.

    • While people can start collecting Social Security benefits at age 62, delaying collection will result in higher benefits. SmartAsset’s Social Security calculator can help you develop a collection plan that enables you to maximize your benefits and enjoy retirement.

    Photo credit: ©iStock.com/AscentXmedia, ©iStock.com/Kameleon007, ©iStock.com/FatCamera

    The post Should the 45% Rule Guide Your Retirement Strategy? appeared first on SmartAsset Blog.

    [ad_2]

    Source link