Connect with us

Personal Finance

Congress wants to nix GPO, WEP rules reducing Social Security benefits

Published

on

Skynesher | E+ | Getty Images

Rare bipartisan momentum is growing in the House of Representatives to force a vote on a bill that would address a topic Congress typically avoids — Social Security.

The bill — the Social Security Fairness Act — would repeal two rules that reduce Social Security benefits for workers and spouses, widows and widowers who also receive pension income.

On Tuesday, Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Garret Graves, R-La., filed a discharge petition to force a vote on the bill on the House floor.

The petition currently has 172 signatures out of the 218 signatures required for a vote, including 25 Republicans, according to Spanberger’s office.

If brought to the House floor, the Social Security Fairness Act may pass, based on the 327 co-sponsors who are currently behind the proposal.

The Senate version of the bill, with 62 co-sponsors, also has broad support.

More from Personal Finance:
The ‘vibecession’ is ending as U.S. economy nails a soft landing
How the election could affect your taxes
Here’s how to know if your college kid actually needs ‘dorm insurance’

National groups representing police, firefighters, teachers, postal workers and government employees on the federal, state, county and municipal level, have also backed the effort.

Despite the momentum, experts say pushing the bill into law will not be easy.

“There’s just a time constraint here, and both the Senate and the House have a lot of work to do before the end of the year,” said Emerson Sprick, associate director for the economic policy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Moreover, simply eliminating the rules — formally known as the government pension offset, or GPO, and windfall elimination provision, or WEP — may not make the program’s benefits fairer, he said.

The WEP, in particular, is “deeply, incredibly misunderstood,” which contributes to calls to simply get rid of the rule, Sprick said.

How the WEP and GPO work

The windfall elimination provision reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pension or disability benefits from employment that did not require them to contribute payroll taxes to the program.

More than 2 million workers are affected by the WEP, according to the legislative proposal.

The government pension offset reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows and widowers who also have pension income.

More than 745,000 Americans are affected by the GPO.

The reduced income can come as a shock to those who are affected — and can prompt those individuals to make difficult life decisions.

At a Wednesday Senate hearing, Roger Boudreau, president of the Rhode Island American Federation of Teachers Retirees Chapter, cited a 75-year-old schoolteacher who is still working for fear she would not have enough income to live on if she retires.

She currently receives Social Security benefits after her husband predeceased her. But if she retirees and begins collecting the pension benefits she earned, that Social Security income may disappear. Her pension benefits wouldn’t be enough to live on, Boudreau said.

“She is basically a slave to her job as a result of the government pension offset,” Boudreau said.

Why eliminating current rules may be problematic

But nixing the WEP and GPO completely could make benefits disproportionately generous to workers who only pay Social Security taxes for some of their careers, research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has found.

Social Security benefits are progressive, which means the income replacement formula is more generous for low earners than for higher earners.

Consequently, pension-covered workers who have contributed fewer years to Social Security may look like low earners to the program. That can result in more generous benefits for those workers compared others who have spent their entire careers contributing to the program.

Both the WEP and GPO rules are designed to adjust benefits so people with a combination of covered and non-covered Social Security work don’t get treated more generously, said Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

As a long-time federal employee who is now retired, Van de Water is personally affected by the windfall elimination provision.

“These bills would benefit me, but I still think they’re a bad idea,” Van de Water said.

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

Eliminating the rules through the Social Security Fairness Act would also cost the program at a time when Social Security faces looming trust fund depletion dates, he said.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the repeal would cost around $196 billion over 10 years.

Updating the current rules would be a better way to go, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. That could include a new income replacement rate that better reflects total income, including for spousal and survivor benefits.

The Bipartisan Policy Center has advocated for updating Social Security’s benefit formula to prorate benefits based on the share of an individual’s lifetime earnings that contributed to the program.

“The solution here certainly isn’t to repeal it,” Sprick said of the windfall elimination provision. “It’s to change it, it’s to make it clear, it’s to make it based on the most updated data that [the Social Security Administration] has access to.”

Nevertheless, lawmakers plan to continue to fight for elimination of the current rules through the Social Security Fairness Act.

“Get a hold of your representative or your senator to get on it, because this is part of a broken system,” Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., a Republican co-sponsor of the bill, said at this week’s Social Security hearing. “It’s an inequity that needs to be fixed.”

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Prices of top 25 Medicare Part D drugs have nearly doubled: AARP

Published

on

Morsa Images | Digitalvision | Getty Images

List prices for the top 25 prescription drugs covered by Medicare Part D have nearly doubled, on average, since they were first brought to market, according to a new AARP report.

Moreover, that price growth has often exceeded the rate of inflation, according to the interest group representing Americans ages 50 and over.

The analysis comes as Medicare now has the ability to negotiate prescription drug costs after the Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022.

Notably, only certain drugs are eligible for those price negotiations.

The Biden administration in August released a list of the first 10 drugs to be included, which may prompt an estimated $6 billion in net savings for Medicare in 2026.

Another list of 15 Part D drugs selected for negotiation for 2027 is set to be announced by Feb. 1 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Biden administration releases prices of 10 drugs in Medicare negotiations

AARP studied the top 25 Part D drugs as of 2022 that are not currently subject to Medicare price negotiation. However, there is a “pretty strong likelihood” at least some of the drugs on that list may be selected in the second line of negotiation, according to Leigh Purvis, prescription drug policy principal at AARP.

Those 25 drugs have increased by an average of 98%, or nearly doubled, since they entered the market, the research found, with lifetime price increases ranging from 0% to 293%.

Price increases that took place after the drugs began selling on the market were responsible for a “substantial portion” of the current list prices, AARP found.

The top 25 treatments have been on the market for an average of 11 years, with timelines ranging from five to 28 years.

The findings highlight the importance of allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices, as well as having a mechanism to discourage annual price increases, Purvis said. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, drug companies will also be penalized for price increases that exceed inflation.

Notably, a new $2,000 annual cap on out-of-pocket Part D prescription drug costs goes into effect this year. Beneficiaries will also have the option of spreading out those costs over the course of the year, rather than paying all at once. Insulin has also been capped at $35 per month for Medicare beneficiaries.

More from Personal Finance:
Maximize your 401(k) plan in 2025 with higher limits and catch-up contributions
Here are changes retirees will see from Social Security and Medicare in 2025
Biden withdrew student loan forgiveness plans. There is still debt relief available

Those caps help people who were previously spending upwards of $10,000 per year on their cost sharing of Part D prescription drugs, according to Purvis.

“The fact that there’s now a limit is incredibly important for them, but then also really important for everyone,” Purvis said. “Because everyone is just one very expensive prescription away from needing that out-of-pocket cap.”

The new law also expands an extra help program for Part D beneficiaries with low incomes.

“We do hear about people having to choose between splitting their pills to make them last longer, or between groceries and filling a prescription,” said Natalie Kean, director of federal health advocacy at Justice in Aging.

“The pressure of costs and prescription drugs is real, and especially for people with low incomes, who are trying to just meet their day-to-day needs,” Kean said.

As the new changes go into effect, retirees should notice tangible differences when they’re filling their prescriptions, she said.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

How much money you should save for a comfortable retirement

Published

on

Rockaa | E+ | Getty Images

Many Americans are anxious and confused when it comes to saving for retirement.

One of those pain points: How much should households be setting aside to give themselves a good chance at financial security in older age?

More than half of Americans lack confidence in their ability to retire when they want and to sustain a comfortable life, according to a 2024 poll by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

It’s easy to see why people are unsure of themselves: Retirement savings is an inexact science.

“It’s really a hard question to answer,” said Philip Chao, a certified financial planner and founder of Experiential Wealth, based in Cabin John, Maryland.

“Everyone’s answer is different,” Chao said. “There is no magic number.”

Tax Tip: 401(K) limits for 2025

Why?

Savings rates change from person to person based on factors such as income and when they started saving. It’s also inherently impossible for anyone to know when they’ll stop working, how long they’ll live, or how financial conditions may evolve — all of which impact the value of one’s nest egg and how long it must last.

That said, there are guideposts and truisms that will give many savers a good shot at getting it right, experts said.

15% is ‘probably the right place to start’

“I think a total savings rate of 15% is probably the right place to start,” said CFP David Blanchett, head of retirement research at PGIM, the asset management arm of Prudential Financial.

The percentage is a share of savers’ annual income before taxes. It includes any money workers might get from a company 401(k) match.

More from Personal Finance:
The retirement planning gap ‘hidden in plain sight’: Harvard expert
Many Americans feel behind on retirement planning
Delaying retirement may not rescue you from poor savings

Those with lower earnings — say, less than $50,000 a year — can probably save less, perhaps around 10%, Blanchett said, as a rough approximation.

Conversely, higher earners — perhaps those who make more than $200,000 a year — may need to save closer to 20%, he said.

These disparities are due to the progressive nature of Social Security. Benefits generally account for a bigger chunk of lower earners’ retirement income relative to higher earners. Those with higher salaries must save more to compensate.

“If I make $5 million, I don’t really care about Social Security, because it won’t really make a dent,” Chao said.

How to think about retirement savings

Daniel De La Hoz | Moment | Getty Images

Households should have a basic idea of why they’re saving, Chao said.

Savings will help cover, at a minimum, essential expenses such as food and housing throughout retirement, which may last decades, Chao said. Hopefully there will be additional funds for spending on nonessential items such as travel.

This income generally comes from a combination of personal savings and Social Security. Between those sources, households generally need enough money each year to replace about 70% to 75% of the salaries they earned just before retirement, Chao said.

There is no magic number.

Philip Chao

CFP, founder of Experiential Wealth

Fidelity, the largest administrator of 401(k) plans, pegs that replacement rate at 55% to 80% for workers to be able to maintain their lifestyle in retirement.

Of that, about 45 percentage points would come from savings, Fidelity wrote in an October analysis.

To get there, people should save 15% a year from age 25 to 67, the firm estimates. The rate may be lower for those with a pension, it said.

The savings rate also rises for those who start later: Someone who starts saving at 35 years old would need to save 23% a year, for example, Fidelity estimates.

An example of how much to save

Retirement Planning: How to Maximize Your Financial Future

Here’s a basic example from Fidelity of how the financial calculus might work: Let’s say a 25-year-old woman earns $54,000 a year. Assuming a 1.5% raise each year, after inflation, her salary would be $100,000 by age 67.

Her savings would likely need to generate about $45,000 a year, adjusted for inflation, to maintain her lifestyle after age 67. This figure is 45% of her $100,000 income before retirement, which is Fidelity’s estimate for an adequate personal savings rate.

Since the worker currently gets a 5% dollar-for-dollar match on her 401(k) plan contributions, she’d need to save 10% of her income each year, starting with $5,400 this year — for a total of 15% toward retirement.

However, 15% won’t necessarily be an accurate guide for everyone, experts said.

“The more you make, the more you have to save,” Blanchett said. “I think that’s a really important piece, given the way Social Security benefits adjust based upon your historical earnings history.”

Keys to success: ‘Start early and save often’

Violetastoimenova | E+ | Getty Images

There are some keys to general success for retirement, experts said.

  1. “Start early and save often,” Chao said. “That’s the main thing.” This helps build a savings habit and gives more time for investments to grow, experts said.
  2. “If you can’t save 15%, then save 5%, save whatever you can — even 1% — so you get in the habit of knowing you need to put money away,” Blanchett said. “Start when you can, where you can.”
  3. Every time you get a raise, save at least a portion instead of spending it all. Blanchett recommends setting aside at least a quarter of each raise. Otherwise, your savings rate will lag your more expensive lifestyle.
  4. Many people invest too conservatively, Chao said. Investors need an adequate mix of assets such as stocks and bonds to ensure investments grow adequately over decades. Target-date funds aren’t optimal for everyone, but provide a “pretty good” asset allocation for most savers, Blanchett said.
  5. Save for retirement in a tax-advantaged account like a 401(k) plan or an individual retirement account, rather than a taxable brokerage account, if possible. The latter will generally erode more savings due to taxes, Blanchett said.
  6. Delaying retirement is “the silver bullet” to make your retirement savings last longer, Blanchett said. One caution: Workers can’t always count on this option being available.
  7. Don’t forget about “vesting” rules for your 401(k) match. You may not be entitled to that money until after a few years of service.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Missing quarterly tax payment could trigger ‘unexpected penalties’

Published

on

Israel Sebastian | Moment | Getty Images

The fourth-quarter estimated tax deadline for 2024 is Jan. 15, and missing a payment could trigger “unexpected penalties and fees” when filing your return, according to the IRS.

Typically, estimated taxes apply to income without withholdings, such as earnings from freelance work, a small business or investments. But you could still owe taxes for full-time or retirement income if you didn’t withhold enough.

You could also owe fourth-quarter taxes for year-end bonuses, stock dividends, capital gains from mutual fund payouts or profits from crypto sales and more, the IRS said.    

More from Personal Finance:
At the start of 2025, nearly half of credit card users are carrying debt
As natural disasters intensify, affected student loan borrowers have options
Your paycheck could be slightly bigger in 2025 due to tax bracket changes

Federal income taxes are “pay as you go,” meaning the IRS expects payments throughout the year as you make income, said certified public accountant Brian Long, senior tax advisor at Wealth Enhancement in Minneapolis. 

If you miss the Jan. 15 deadline, you may incur an interest-based penalty based on the current interest rate and how much you should have paid. That penalty compounds daily.

Tax withholdings, estimated payments or a combination of the two, can “help avoid a surprise tax bill at tax time,” according to the IRS.

What to know about the ‘safe harbor’ rules

However, you could still owe taxes for 2024 if you make more than expected and don’t adjust your tax payments.

“The good thing about this last quarterly payment is that most individuals should have their year-end numbers finalized,” said Sheneya Wilson, a CPA and founder of Fola Financial in New York.

How to make quarterly estimated tax payments

Tax Tip: Child Credit

Continue Reading

Trending