Connect with us

Personal Finance

Trump’s plan to end taxes on Social Security a ‘fatal mistake’: lawmaker

Published

on

Phoenix Wang | Moment | Getty Images

Voters say Social Security is a ‘top’ election issue

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act into law on Aug. 14, 1935.

FPG | Archive Photos | Getty Images

On Wednesday, Social Security reached the 89th anniversary since President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the program into law.

The program now faces an uncertain future, as its combined trust funds are projected to run dry in 2035. At that time, unless Congress acts sooner, beneficiaries may see an across-the-board 17% benefit cut.

The program’s trust fund that pays retirement benefits is due to run out even sooner, in 2033, risking a 21% cut to those benefits.

Social Security’s future is “one of the top” or a “very important” issue in how voters plan to choose candidates in the November presidential election, a new CNBC poll finds.

“I believe, from my conversations with lots of people on both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill, that there’s the will to actually examine this and extend it for many, many years to come,” Social Security Commissioner Martin O’Malley told CNBC “Squawk Box” on Wednesday.

Social Security Administration Commissioner: Congress needs to act in order to avoid the shortfall

Social Security fixes likely to include tax changes

Trump is not the first to suggest the elimination of taxes on Social Security benefits. One Democratic bill introduced in January in the House of Representatives — the You Earned It, You Keep It Act — likewise calls for excluding Social Security benefits from gross income for federal income taxes.

If enacted, the bill would save the typical senior household almost $560 per year, the Senior Citizens League, a non-partisan senior group, recently estimated.

But the move would increase federal deficits by $1.6 trillion to $1.8 trillion through 2035, non-partisan public policy organization Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, found in a recent analysis of Trump’s idea. Moreover, it would increase Social Security’s 75-year shortfall by 25%.

A Trump campaign spokesman did not return a request for comment by CNBC.

Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures as he leaves, after casting his ballot for early voting in Florida’s primary election, in West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S. August 14, 2024. 

Marco Bello | Reuters

Larson is instead touting a broader reform package — the Social Security 2100 Act — that would broadly make benefits more generous and pay for those increases by imposing higher taxes on the wealthy.

The bill would include a 2% across-the-board benefit increase, as well as more targeted increases for lower-income seniors, widows and widowers and students. The proposal would also eliminate current rules that result in reduced benefits tied to public servants, known as the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset.

To pay for those changes, the bill calls for raising the Social Security payroll tax thresholds for wealthy earners. In 2024, up to $168,600 in earnings are subject to those levies. The bill calls for reapplying the tax on earnings over $400,000. It would also apply a higher net investment income tax rate for those higher earners.

Altogether, the bill’s provisions could help extend the program’s ability to pay full benefits by 32 years, the Social Security Office of the Chief Actuary estimated last year.

The Social Security 2100 bill has been reintroduced in various sessions of Congress. Larson, who is running for reelection, said he plans to reintroduce it again in the next session.

While the current version has 188 Democratic co-sponsors, Larson said he hopes for the backing of two other notable leaders — Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris and her running mate, Tim Walz.

As senator, Harris was a co-sponsor of a bill that similarly called for making benefits more generous while raising taxes for the wealthy. As vice president, the White House administration likewise called for expanding Social Security and taxing the wealthy.

Meanwhile, Walz was an original co-sponsor of Social Security 2100 during his time as a congressman representing Minnesota, according to Larson. As governor of Minnesota, Walz increased the state tax exemption for Social Security benefits.

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., and other lawmakers discuss the Social Security 2100 Act, which would include increased minimum benefits, on Capitol Hill on Oct. 26, 2021.

Drew Angerer | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The Harris-Walz campaign did not return a request for comment from CNBC.

While Republicans have considered other changes to Social Security — such as raising the retirement age — Larson hopes he can eventually lure leaders from the other side of the aisle to support his proposal.

“We’re going to lift the cap on people [earning] over $400,000 and the other side says, ‘Here you go again. It’s tax the wealthy,'” Larson said. “No, it’s have them pay their fair share.”

In congressional hearings on the program, Republican lawmakers have raised concerns about the costs associated with reforming the program. Ultimately, restoring Social Security’s solvency may require a compromise including both tax increases and benefit cuts.

Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, commended Larson for his passion and for putting a proposal on paper during an April Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee hearing.

“Even if I disagree, and in some cases wildly disagree, with his way of solving it, we’re going to have to get in a room and we’re going to have to hold hands and leap off the cliff of those who criticize us who do anything to reform the program,” Arrington said.

While critics question whether lawmakers will bring the bill forward for a vote, Larson said he hopes to see progress on Social Security in the next Congress or in the coming lame duck session.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Maximum Social Security retirement benefit: Here’s who qualifies

Published

on

Twenty47studio | Moment | Getty Images

Millions of Social Security beneficiaries will benefit from the 2.5% cost-of-living adjustment for 2025, set to take effect in January.

With that increase, the maximum Social Security benefit for a worker retiring at full retirement age will jump to $4,018 per month, up from $3,822 per month this year, according to the Social Security Administration.

But while those maximum benefits will see a $196 monthly increase, retirement benefits will go up by about $50 per month on average, according to the agency.

The average monthly benefit for retired workers is expected to increase to $1,976 per month in 2025, a $49 increase from $1,927 per month as of this year, according to the Social Security Administration.

Who gets maximum Social Security benefits?

The highest Social Security benefits generally go to people who have had maximum earnings their entire working career, according to Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

That cohort generally includes a “very small number of people,” he said.

Because Social Security retirement benefits are calculated based on the highest 35 years of earnings, workers need to consistently have wages up to that threshold to earn the maximum retirement benefit.

“Very few people start out at age 21 earning the maximum level,” Van de Water said.

Social Security is a key issue for voters, survey finds: Here’s how to maximize benefits

Workers contribute payroll taxes to Social Security up to what is known as a taxable maximum.

In 2024, a 6.2% tax paid by both workers and employers (or 12.4% for self-employed workers) applies to up to $168,600 in earnings. In 2025, that will go up to $176,100.

Notably, that limit applies only to wages that are subject to federal payroll taxes. If a wealthy person has other sources of income, for example from investments that do not require payroll tax contributions, that will not affect the size of their Social Security benefits, said Jim Blair, vice president of Premier Social Security Consulting and a former Social Security administrator.

How can you increase your Social Security benefits?   

There are beneficiaries who are receiving Social Security checks amounting to more than $4,000 per month, and they usually have waited to claim until age 70, according to Blair.

“Technically, waiting until 70 gets you the most amount of Social Security benefits,” Blair said.

By claiming retirement benefits at the earliest possible age — 62 — beneficiaries receive permanently reduced benefits.

At full retirement age — either 66 or 67, depending on date of birth — retirees receive 100% of the benefits they’ve earned.

And by waiting from full retirement age up to age 70, beneficiaries stand to receive an 8% benefit boost per year.

By waiting from age 62 to 70, beneficiaries may see a 77% increase in benefits.

More from Personal Finance:
House may force vote on bill affecting pensioners’ Social Security benefits
Why children miss out on Social Security survivor benefits
72% of Americans worry Social Security will run out in their lifetimes

However, because everyone’s circumstances are different, it may not always make sense to wait until the highest possible claiming age, Blair said.

Prospective beneficiaries need to evaluate not only how their claiming decision will impact them individually, but also their spouse and any dependents, he said.

“You have to look at your own situation before you apply,” Blair said.

Also, it is important for prospective beneficiaries to create an online My Social Security account to review their benefit statements, he said. That will show estimates of future benefits and the earnings history the agency has on record.

Because that earnings information is used to calculate benefits, individuals should double check that information to make sure it is correct, Blair said. If it is not, they should contact the Social Security Administration to fix it.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Inherited IRA rules are changing in 2025 — here’s what to know

Published

on

Jacob Wackerhausen | Istock | Getty Images

What to know about the 10-year rule

Before the Secure Act of 2019, heirs could “stretch” inherited IRA withdrawals over their lifetime, which helped reduce yearly taxes.

But certain accounts inherited since 2020 are subject to the “10-year rule,” meaning IRAs must be empty by the 10th year following the original account owner’s death. The rule applies to heirs who are not a spouse, minor child, disabled, chronically ill or certain trusts.

Since then, there’s been confusion about whether the heirs subject to the 10-year rule needed to take yearly withdrawals, known as required minimum distributions, or RMDs.

“You have a multi-dimensional matrix of outcomes for different inherited IRAs,” Dickson said. It’s important to understand how these rules impact your distribution strategy, he added.

After years of waived penalties, the IRS in July confirmed certain heirs will need to begin yearly RMDs from inherited accounts starting in 2025. The rule applies if the original account owner had reached their RMD age before death.

If you miss yearly RMDs or don’t take enough, there is a 25% penalty on the amount you should have withdrawn. But it’s possible to reduce the penalty to 10% if the RMD is “timely corrected” within two years, according to the IRS.

Consider ‘strategic distributions’

If you’re subject to the 10-year rule for your inherited IRA, spreading withdrawals evenly over the 10 years reduces taxes for most heirs, according to research released by Vanguard in June.

However, you should also consider “strategic distributions,” according to certified financial planner Judson Meinhart, director of financial planning at Modera Wealth Management in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.

“It starts by understanding what your current marginal tax rate is” and how that could change over the 10-year window, he said.

Roth conversions on the rise: Here's what to know

For example, it could make sense to make withdrawals during lower-tax years, such as years of unemployment or early retirement before receiving Social Security payments. 

However, boosting adjusted gross income can trigger other consequences, such as eligibility for college financial aid, income-driven student loan payments or Medicare Part B and Part D premiums for retirees.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Nearly 2 in 5 cardholders have maxed out a credit card or come close

Published

on

Asiavision | E+ | Getty Images

Between higher prices and high interest rates, some Americans have had a hard time keeping up.

As a result, many are using more of their available credit and now, nearly 2 in 5 credit cardholders — 37% — have maxed out or come close to maxing out a credit card since the Federal Reserve began raising rates in March 2022, according to a new report by Bankrate.

Most borrowers who are over extended blame rising prices and a higher cost of living, Bankrate found.

Other reasons cardholders blame for maxing out a credit card or coming close include a job or income loss, an emergency expense, medical costs and too much discretionary spending.

“With limited options to absorb those higher costs, many low-income Americans have had no choice but to take on debt to afford costlier essentials — at a time when credit card rates are near record highs,” Sarah Foster, an analyst at Bankrate, said in a statement.

As prices crept higher, so did credit card balances.

The average balance per consumer now stands at $6,329, up 4.8% year over year, according to the latest credit industry insights report from TransUnion.

At the same time, the average credit card charges more than 20% interest — near an all-time high — and half of cardholders carry debt from month to month, according to another report by Bankrate.  

Carrying a higher balance has a direct impact on your utilization rate, the ratio of debt to total credit, and is one of the factors that can influence your credit score. Higher credit score borrowers typically have both higher limits and lower utilization rates.

More from Personal Finance:
Holiday shoppers plan to spend more
2.5% adjustment to Social Security benefits coming in 2025
‘Fantastic time’ to revisit bonds as interest rates fall

Credit experts generally advise borrowers to keep revolving debt below 30% of their available credit to limit the effect that high balances can have.

As of August, the aggregate credit card utilization rate was more than 21%, according to Bankrate’s analysis of Equifax data.

Still, “if you have five credit cards [with utilization rates around] 20%, you have a lot of debt out there,” said Howard Dvorkin, a certified public accountant and the chairman of Debt.com. “People are living a life that they can’t afford right now, and they are putting the balance on credit cards.”

Generation X at risk

Gen X most likely to max out their credit cards, survey finds

Potential problems ahead

Cardholders who have maxed out or come close to maxing out their credit cards are also more likely to become delinquent.

Credit card delinquency rates are already higher across the board, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and TransUnion both reported.

“Consumers have been measured in taking on additional revolving debt despite the inflationary environment over the past few years, although there has been an uptick in delinquencies in recent months,” said Tom McGee, CEO of the International Council of Shopping Centers.

A debt is considered delinquent when a borrower misses a full billing cycle without making a payment, or what’s considered 30 days past due. That can damage your credit score and impact the interest rate you’ll pay for credit cards, car loans and mortgages — or whether you’ll get a loan at all.

Some of the best ways to improve your credit standing come down to paying your bills on time every month, and in full, if possible, Dvorkin said. “Understand that if you don’t, then whatever you buy, over time, will end up costing you double.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Continue Reading

Trending