Personal Finance

New Social Security benefit legislation points to need for broader reform

Published

3 months ago

January 13, 2025

Richard Stephen | Istock | Getty Images

When President Joe Biden signed the Social Security Fairness Act on Jan. 5, it was a victory for those who tirelessly lobbied for years for new changes that will provide more generous benefits to public workers with pensions.

Yet for the policy community, the enacted change backed by overwhelming bipartisan support in both the House and Senate is a huge disappointment.

“Literally, you cannot find a Social Security expert who thought Social Security Fairness Act was a good idea,” said Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

The new law eliminates two provisions that adjusted Social Security benefits for individuals who also receive pension income from work performed in the public sector where payroll taxes to Social Security were not paid.

The now defunct Windfall Elimination Provision, or WEP, reduced Social Security benefits for approximately 2 million individuals who also have pension or disability benefits from work where they did not contribute to Social Security. The WEP was enacted in 1983.

The Government Pension Offset, or GPO, reduced Social Security benefits for nearly 750,000 spouses, widows and widowers who receive their own pensions from work in the public sector. The GPO was created in 1977.

The provisions were intended to help ensure all Social Security beneficiaries get a comparable payout from the program. Because Social Security is progressive and intended to be an anti-poverty program, low-income workers receive a higher income replacement rate when they collect benefits. The WEP and GPO were intended to adjust public workers’ benefits so they were not treated as low-income workers.

Once the bill was signed, organizations that lobbied for the change praised the new law for finally providing affected workers the full Social Security benefits they had earned. For the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the new law caps off a decades-long fight to either modify or repeal the rules.

“It’s a way of cutting benefits for a class of people who are providing a public service for our communities,” said Maria Freese, senior legislative representative at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

“They got singled out, and their Social Security earns them less in benefits than a person who decided not to go into public service,” Freese said.

As the new law is phased in, Social Security beneficiaries may see monthly benefit increases ranging from an average of $360 to $1,190, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. Affected beneficiaries will also get lump-sum payments for the extra benefits they would have received throughout 2024.

The law makes the program “more fair” now that people will no longer be penalized for income earned outside of the system, said John Hatton, staff vice president for policy and programs at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, or NARFE.

Notably, income from capital gains or inheritances already did not influence the size of Social Security benefits. The same should be true for income earned outside of the program, Hatton said.

Yet many policy experts maintain the changes never should have been enacted.

“What we saw was a huge special interest push for a very poorly developed and poorly targeted policy which is creating windfalls for a number of recipients,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Notably, that change will cost almost $200 billion over 10 years, according to the CBO, at a time when Social Security’s trust funds are already running low. The program’s combined trust funds are expected to last until 2035, at which point 83% of benefits will be payable, Social Security’s trustees projected last year. Eliminating the WEP and GPO will bring move that depletion date six months closer.

Experts both for and against the Social Security Fairness Act agree Congress needs to address the program’s funding shortfall sooner rather than later.

Provisions aimed to prevent benefit windfalls

The WEP and GPO rules, and how their intricacies affect individual beneficiaries, are complex.

“There is an injustice here that the provisions tried to correct, maybe not perfectly,” said Alicia Munnell, senior advisor at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

Despite experts’ tireless efforts to explain the provisions to lawmakers, “we all failed,” Munnell said. Now what’s left is “bad policy,” she said.

Put simply, without the WEP, state and local workers who only work in jobs that pay into Social Security for a short time look like low earners and consequently get the extra benefits aimed at low earners, she said.

The elimination of the GPO also now makes it so a nonworking spousal Social Security benefit goes to a full-time worker with their own pension benefit, noted Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center.

“There’s zero justification for doing that,” said Blahous, who called the legislation “unserious” and “disappointing.”

While the WEP and GPO were imperfect, they were needed to prevent the payment of benefit windfalls to a small number of people who didn’t pay Social Security taxes for years, he said.

“It’s a very concerning indicator of Social Security’s future,” Blahous said.

Lawmakers face Social Security solvency dilemma

The Social Security Fairness Act was passed by the Senate with a 76-vote bipartisan majority. Amendments that were introduced in those final legislative hours in December — including efforts to add ways to pay for the change or alter the provisions instead of replacing them — failed. The Senate took up the bill after the House passed it in November with a 327 bipartisan majority.

Now that the WEP and GPO elimination has become law, one way to make the changes more equitable would be bring the 25% of state and local workers who do not currently contribute to Social Security into the program, according to Munnell.

While Congress could revisit the changes it just made with the Social Security Fairness Act, experts say that’s unlikely.

The bigger problem lawmakers now face is when and how to restore the program’s solvency.

“We are still in a place where politically it’s very difficult for members of Congress to come out in support of any substantive, responsible changes to the program that will address its long-term fiscal issues,” said Emerson Sprick, associate director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Future action will require presidential leadership and a commitment to address the issue, Sprick said.

Former President Donald Trump on entitlements: There's tremendous numbers of things you can do

However, for now, President-elect Donald Trump has promised not to touch Social Security. Trump has also said he wants to eliminate taxes on Social Security benefit income. Trump’s presidential transition team did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Because that change would be expensive, over $100 billion a year, and does not have the same fairness argument to it, it would be less likely to go through, according to Biggs.

While Trump has promised no benefit cuts, that creates a mathematical problem for Republicans, who are typically a low-tax party, he said.

Ultimately, restoring Social Security’s solvency may require benefit cuts, tax increases or a combination of both.

“We know that we need to be addressing Social Security and Medicare because of the insolvency that they both face within roughly a decade,” MacGuineas said. “Neither party, no leader, seems to have the political will or the integrity to start talking about how to get that done.”

Personal Finance

What student loan forgiveness opportunities still remain under Trump

Published

1 second ago

April 26, 2025

Business Finance News

Halfpoint Images | Moment | Getty Images

Under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Education made regular announcements that it was forgiving student debt for thousands of people under various relief programs and repayment plans.

That’s changed under President Donald Trump.

In his first few months in office, Trump — who has long been critical of education debt cancellation — signed an executive order aimed at limiting eligibility for the popular Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, and his Education Department revised some student loan repayment plans to no longer conclude in debt erasure.

“You have the administration trying to limit PSLF credits, and clear attacks on the income-based repayment with forgiveness options,” said Malissa Giles, a consumer bankruptcy attorney in Virginia.

The White House did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

Here’s what to know about the current status of federal student loan forgiveness opportunities.

Forgiveness chances narrow on repayment plans

The Biden administration’s new student loan repayment plan, Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE, isn’t expected to survive under Trump, experts say. A U.S. appeals court already blocked the plan in February after a GOP-led challenge to the program.

SAVE came with two key provisions that lawsuits targeted: It had lower monthly payments than any other federal student loan repayment plan, and it led to quicker debt erasure for those with small balances.

“I personally think you will see SAVE dismantled through the courts or the administration,” Giles said.

But the Education Department under Trump is now arguing that the ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals required it to end the loan forgiveness under repayment plans beyond SAVE. As a result, the Pay As You Earn and Income-Contingent Repayment options no longer wipe debt away after a certain number of years.

There’s some good news: At least one repayment plan still leads to debt erasure, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz. That plan is called Income-Based Repayment.

If a borrower enrolled in ICR or PAYE eventually switches to IBR, their previous payments made under the other plans will count toward loan forgiveness under IBR, as long as they meet the IBR’s other requirements, Kantrowitz said. (Some borrowers may opt to take that strategy if they have a lower monthly bill under ICR or PAYE than they would on IBR.)

Public Service Loan Forgiveness remains

Despite Trump‘s executive order in March aimed at limiting eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, the program remains intact. Any changes to the program would likely take months or longer to materialize, and may even need congressional approval, experts say.

PSLF, which President George W. Bush signed into law in 2007, allows many not-for-profit and government employees to have their federal student loans canceled after 10 years of payments.

What’s more, any changes to PSLF can’t be retroactive, consumer advocates say. That means that if you are currently working for or previously worked for an organization that the Trump administration later excludes from the program, you’ll still get credit for that time — at least up until when the changes go into effect.

For now, the language in the president’s executive order was fairly vague. As a result, it remains unclear exactly which organizations will no longer be considered a qualifying employer under PSLF, experts said.

However, in his first few months in office, Trump has targeted immigrants, transgender and nonbinary people and those who work to increase diversity across the private and public sector. Many nonprofits work in these spaces, providing legal support or doing advocacy and education work.

For now, those pursuing PSLF should print out a copy of their payment history on StudentAid.gov or request one from their loan servicer. They should keep a record of the number of qualifying payments they’ve made so far, said Jessica Thompson, senior vice president of The Institute for College Access & Success.

“We urge borrowers to save all documentation of their payments, payment counts, and employer certifications to ensure they have any information that might be useful in the future,” Thompson said.

Other loan cancellation opportunities to consider

Federal student loan borrowers also remain entitled to a number of other student loan forgiveness opportunities.

The Teacher Loan Forgiveness program offers up to $17,500 in loan cancellation to those who’ve worked full time for “complete and consecutive academic years in a low-income school or educational service agency,” among other requirements, according to the Education Department.

(One thing to note: This program can’t be combined with PSLF, and so borrowers should decide which avenue makes the most sense for them.)

In less common circumstances, you may be eligible for a full discharge of your federal student loans under Borrower Defense if your school closed while you were enrolled or if you were misled by your school or didn’t receive a quality education.

Borrowers may qualify for a Total and Permanent Disability discharge if they suffer from a mental or physical disability that is severe and permanent and prevents them from working. Proof of the disability can come from a doctor, the Social Security Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs.

With the federal government rolling back student loan forgiveness measures, experts also recommend that borrowers explore the many state-level relief programs available. The Institute of Student Loan Advisors has a database of student loan forgiveness programs by state.

Don’t miss these insights from CNBC PRO

Personal Finance

Many Americans are worried about running out of money in retirement

Published

19 hours ago

April 25, 2025

Business Finance News

M Swiet Productions | Getty Images

Many Americans are worried they’ll run out of money in retirement.

In fact, a new survey from Allianz Life finds that 64% Americans worry more about running out of money than they do about dying. Among the reasons cited for those fears include high inflation, Social Security benefits not providing enough support and high taxes.

The fear of running out of money was most prominent for Gen Xers who are approaching retirement. However, a majority of millennials and baby boomers also said they worry about their money lasting, according to the online survey of 1,000 individuals conducted between January and February.

Separately, a new Employee Benefit Research Institute report finds most retirees say they are living the lifestyle they envisioned and are able to spend money within reason. Yet more than half of those surveyed agreed at least somewhat that they spend less because of worries they will run out of money, according to the survey of more than 2,700 individuals conducted between January and February.

Meanwhile, a Northwestern Mutual survey reported that 51% of Americans think it’s “somewhat or very likely” they will outlive their savings. The survey polled 4,626 U.S. adults aged 18 and older in January.

Since those studies were conducted, new tariff policies have caused disturbance in the stock markets and prompted speculation that inflation may increase. Meanwhile, new leadership at the Social Security Administration has prompted fears about the continuity of benefits. Those headlines may negatively affect retirement confidence, experts say.

With employers now providing a 401(k) plan and other savings plans versus pensions, it is largely up to workers to manage how much they save heading into retirement and how much they spend once they reach that life stage. That responsibility can also lead to worries of running out of money in the future, experts say.

How to manage the ‘fear of outliving your resources’

Because of the unique risks every individual or couple faces when planning for retirement, the best approach is typically to transfer some of that burden to a third party, said David Blanchett, head of retirement research at PGIM DC Solutions.

Creating a guaranteed lifetime income stream that covers essential expenses can help reduce the financial impact of any events that require retirees to cut back on spending, Blanchett explained.

That should first start with delaying Social Security benefits, he said. While eligible retirees can claim benefits as early as 62, holding off up until age 70 can provide the biggest monthly benefits. Social Security is also unique in that it provides annual adjustments for inflation.

73% of Americans are financially stressed

Next, retirees may want to consider buying a lifetime income annuity that can help amplify the monthly income they can expect. Admittedly, those products can be complicated to understand. Therefore Blanchett recommends starting out by comparing very basic products like single premium immediate annuities that are easier to compare.

“Unless you do those things, you just can’t get rid of that fear of outliving your resources,” Blanchett said.

Without a guaranteed income stream, retirees bear all of the financial risk themselves, he said.

“Retirement could last 10 years; it could last 40 years,” Blanchett said. “You just don’t know how long it’s going to be.”

Among retirees, there has been some hesitation to buy annuities, said Craig Copeland, EBRI’s director of wealth benefits research. Such a purchase requires parting with a lump sum of money in exchange for the promise of a guaranteed income stream.

“We see great increase in interest, but we aren’t seeing upticks in take up yet,” Copeland said. “I do think that’s going to start to change.”

What can help boost retirement confidence

To effectively plan for retirement, it helps to seek professional financial assistance, experts say.

Meanwhile, few people have a plan of their own for how they may live on the assets they’ve worked hard to accumulate, according to Kelly LaVigne, vice president of consumer insights at Allianz Life.

“This is something that you should not plan on doing on your own,” LaVigne said.

While the survey from Northwestern Mutual separately found individuals think they need $1.26 million to retire comfortably, the real number individuals need is based on their personal situation, said Kyle Menke, founder and wealth management advisor at Menke Financial, a Northwestern Mutual company.

In thinking about how life will look in 30 years, there are a variety of things to consider, Menke said. This includes stock market returns, taxes, inflation and medical expenses, he said.

Even people who have enough money for retirement often don’t feel confident in their ability to manage all of those factors on their own, he said. Financial advisors have the ability to run different simulations and stress test a plan, which can help give retirees and aspiring retirees the confidence they’re lacking.

“I think that’s where the biggest gap is,” said Menke, referring to the confidence Americans are lacking without a plan.

Personal Finance

Trump tariffs will hurt lower income Americans more than the rich: study

Published

21 hours ago

April 25, 2025

Business Finance News

Shipping containers at the Port of Seattle on April 16, 2025.

David Ryder/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Tariffs levied by President Donald Trump during his second term would hurt the poorest U.S. households more than the richest over the short term, according to a new analysis.

Tariffs are a tax that importers pay on foreign goods. Economists expect consumers to shoulder at least some of that tax burden in the form of higher prices, depending on how businesses pass along the costs.

In 2026, taxes for the poorest 20% of households would rise about four times more than those in the top 1%, if the current tariff policies were to stay in place. Those were findings according to an analysis published Wednesday by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Car prices are going up from Trump's auto tariffs 'unless something changes': Liberty Subaru owner

For the bottom 20% of households — who will have incomes of less than $29,000 in 2026 — the tariffs will impose a tax increase equal to 6.2% of their income that year, on average, according to ITEP’s analysis.

Meanwhile, those in the top 1%, with an income of more than $915,000 a year, would see their taxes rise 1.7% relative to their income, on average, ITEP found.

Economists analyze the financial impact of policy relative to household income because it illustrates how their disposable income — and quality of life — are impacted.

Taxes by ‘another name’

“Tariffs are just taxes on Americans by another name,” researchers at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, wrote in 2017, during Trump’s first term.

“[They] raise the price of food and clothing, which make up a larger share of a low-income household’s budget,” they wrote, adding: “In fact, cutting tariffs could be the biggest tax cut low-income families will ever see.”

Meanwhile, there’s already evidence that some retailers are raising costs.

A recent analysis by the Yale Budget Lab also found that Trump tariffs are a “regressive” policy, meaning they hurt those at the bottom more than the top.

The short-term tax burden of tariffs is about 2.5 times greater for those at the bottom, the Yale analysis found. It examined tariffs and retaliatory trade measures through April 15.

“Lower income consumers are going to get pinched more by tariffs,” said Ernie Tedeschi, director of economics at the Yale Budget Lab and former chief economist at the White House Council of Economic Advisers during the Biden administration.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariffs may lead to a “one-time price adjustment” for consumers. But he also coupled trade policy as part of a broader White House economic agenda that includes a forthcoming legislative package of tax cuts.

“We’re also working on the tax bill and for working Americans, I believe that the reduction in taxes is going to be substantially more,” Bessent said April 2.

It’s also unclear how current tariff policy might change. The White House has signaled trade deals with certain nations and exemptions for certain products may be in the offing.

Trump has imposed a 10% tariff on imports from most U.S. trading partners. Mexico and Canada face 25% levies on a tranche of goods, and many Chinese goods face import duties of 145%. Specific products also face tariffs, like a 25% duty on aluminum, steel and automobiles.