Connect with us

Personal Finance

How the November election may influence Social Security’s future

Published

on

Demonstrators attend a rally asking Rep. Kean to “Stop MAGA Cuts! Protect Social Security!” on Feb. 24, 2023 in Bridgewater, New Jersey.

Dave Kotinsky | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images

Voters who show up at the polls this November may not just be choosing among Republicans, Democrats and third-party tickets — but also casting a vote on the future of Social Security.

Social Security is expected to pay $1.5 trillion in benefits to an average of almost 68 million Americans per month in 2024.

More than half of peak baby boomers — the largest cohort expected to turn 65 by 2030 — are expected to rely primarily on Social Security for income in retirement.

Meanwhile, Social Security’s trust funds are projected to run out in the next decade, which will prompt an across-the-board benefit cut of at least 20% if no changes happen sooner. As Congress weighs that dilemma, they will also decide Social Security’s future role in Americans’ lives.

More from Personal Finance:
Most retirees don’t delay Social Security benefits
Women reaching ‘peak 65’ more likely to struggle in retirement
Americans think they need almost $1.5 million to retire

Democratic lawmakers like Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., who is running for reelection this year, say today’s benefits are not enough.

“Nobody’s getting wealthy on Social Security,” Larson said in a recent interview with CNBC, noting that more than 5 million Americans receive monthly benefit checks that are below the federal poverty level.

“It is the very sustenance that 40% of all Americans need just to get by, and it hasn’t been adjusted in more than 50 years,” Larson said.

‘Why hasn’t Congress voted?’

In 1983, when the last major Social Security reforms were enacted, there were no benefit enhancements, Larson argued. Among the changes put in place at that time was a gradual increase in the retirement age, taxes on benefit income and reduced benefits for public employees with pensions.

For years, Larson has championed a bill — Social Security 2100 — that aims to increase benefits for all beneficiaries by lifting the payroll tax cap for taxpayers earning over $400,000. Today, annual earnings of up to $168,600 are subject to a 6.2% payroll tax toward Social Security paid by both workers and employers. Larson’s plan also calls for closing loopholes that allow wealthy taxpayers to avoid paying Social Security taxes on other income.

Larson said the public is well aware that Social Security benefits are theirs and they’ve paid for them. Yet the same question comes up again and again: “Why hasn’t Congress voted?”

Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., speaks during an event to introduce legislation called the Social Security 2100 Act. which would increase increase benefits and strengthen the fund, on Capitol Hill on Jan. 30, 2019.

Mark Wilson | Getty Images News | Getty Images

The latest version of Larson’s bill has 184 Democratic co-sponsors yet has never been brought to the House floor for a vote.

Another bill, the Social Security Fairness Act, has even broader support, with 318 co-sponsors from both sides of the aisle, yet that also has yet to be put up for a vote. That proposal tackles just two changes also included in Larson’s bill — repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset rules that limit Social Security benefit income for individuals who receive other benefits like pensions from a state or local government.

Retirement age may be pushed higher

Meanwhile, the Republican Study Committee’s budget, comprising proposals from 192 Republican House members, has suggested changes to Social Security, like raising the retirement age, as it seeks to cut federal spending across the board.

Democrats have called out the more than $1.5 trillion in cuts to Social Security that the Republicans’ proposal may entail.

By raising the retirement age for everyone 59 and younger, Budget Committee Democrats estimate that 257 million people would have to work longer.  

The Republican budget proposal has prompted fears that the party could move to enact those changes through a closed-door commission, Nancy Altman, president of advocacy organization Social Security Works, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee last week.

In response, Rep. Drew Ferguson, R-Georgia, who serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security, said the committee would not be voting on the Republican budget proposal.

“I have said many times that the only way that this gets solved is in a bipartisan open forum,” said Ferguson during the hearing.

Path to bipartisan compromise uncertain

But how a bipartisan effort should proceed is up for debate.

Larson hopes to bring his Social Security 2100 proposal to the House floor for a vote, betting that some Republicans may come around and back making benefits more generous.

The extra money sent to the nation’s seniors would be spent in their districts, he argued. Moreover, the tax increases would require wealthy individuals to pay what every other working American is already contributing to Social Security, he said.

Typical Gen X household only has $40K in retirement savings in private accounts

During last week’s hearing, Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, said that while he respects Larson’s passion, he still expects it will be necessary for lawmakers to agree on some combination of tax increases and benefit cuts that will affect future beneficiaries.

Experts including Charles Blahous, senior research strategist at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, agreed.

“The size of the shortfall now is so huge, and so far beyond anything that lawmakers have successfully closed before, the notion that either party can ram through its preferred solution is fanciful,” Blahous said.

Benefits are regularly increased, Blahous argues, through changes to the initial benefit formula and cost-of-living adjustments.

Larson, for his part, has vowed to “never give up, never relent,” when it comes to pushing for his proposal.

Social Security advocates argue that those changes are what people want.

“If you expand Social Security’s benefits … and you pay for it by requiring the uber wealthy to pay their fair share, you will receive widespread praise and the gratitude of the nation,” Altman told members of the House Ways and Means Committee last week.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Why fewer young adults are able to invest in homeownership

Published

on

FILE PHOTO: An “Open House” sign outside of a home in Washington, DC, US, on Sunday, Nov. 19, 2023. 

Nathan Howard | Bloomberg | Getty Images

When Maryland Governor Wes Moore was 8 years old, his mother told him she wanted to send him to military school to correct his behavior.

Yet it wasn’t until he was 13 that she finally did send him to a military school in Pennsylvania. He ran away five times in the first four days.

“That place ended up really helping me change my life,” said Moore while speaking about retirement security at a BlackRock conference in Washington, D.C., on March 12.

One obstacle — the tuition costs — prevented his mother from sending him sooner, he said.

Impact of federal job and spending cuts on Maryland

Moore was able to attend the school thanks to help from his grandparents, who borrowed against the home they bought when they immigrated to the U.S., to help pay for the first year’s tuition.

“They ended up sacrificing part of their American dream so I could achieve my own,” Moore said.

“That’s what housing helps provide,” Moore said. “It’s not just shelter. It’s security; it’s an investment. It’s a chance you can tap into something if an emergency happens. It’s a chance that you now have an asset that you can hold onto, and you can pass off to future generations.”

After retirement funds, housing generally represents the second-most-valuable asset people have, Moore said.

Some now less likely to own homes than in 1980

Yet achieving that homeownership status can feel unattainable to prospective first-time buyers in today’s economy.

Around 30% of young Maryland residents are thinking of leaving the state because of high housing costs, Moore said.

Both renters and homeowners across the U.S. are struggling with high housing costs, according to a 2024 report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. The number of cost-burdened renters — meaning those who spend more than 30% of their income on rent and utilities — climbed to an all-time high in 2022. At the same time, millions of prospective homebuyers have been priced out by high home prices and interest rates.

Many hopeful first-time home buyers may feel that it was easier for their parents and grandparents’ generations to reach home ownership status.

Research shows those feelings are justified.

More from Personal Finance:
Here’s when to list your home for sale this spring
Tax season is prime time for scams. How to protect yourself
How rent can make or break your credit

Since 1980, median home prices have increased much faster than median household incomes, according to recent research from the Urban Institute.

Across the country, today’s 35- to 44-years olds — who are in their critical homebuying years — are less likely to be homeowners than in 1980, according to the research.

For that age cohort, the homeownership rate has dropped by more than 10% compared to 45 years ago, the Urban Institute found. Because today’s 35- to 44-year-olds are also forming households at a lower rate, that number is likely understated, according to the research.

Ultimately, that can have lasting impacts on their ability to build wealth, said Jun Zhu, a non-resident fellow at the Urban Institute’s Housing Finance Policy Center.

“When you have a house, when the house appreciates, you’re going to earn home equity,” Zhu said. “Earning home equity is actually a very important way to earn wealth.”

Those 35- to 44-year-olds who are in lower income quartiles have seen the biggest declines in homeownership compared to their peers. That is driven in part by the fact that people who are married are more likely to be homeowners, while lower-income individuals are less likely to be married.

Education is also a factor in widening the homeownership gap, according to the Urban Institute, as a smaller share of heads of households who have the lowest incomes are getting college degrees.

Racial divide in homeownership rates persists

Separate research from the National Association of Realtors also points to a racial divide with regard to housing affordability.

In 2023, the latest data available, the Black homeownership rate of 44.7% saw the greatest year-over-year increase among racial groups but was still well behind the white homeownership rate of 72.4%. Other groups fell in between, with Asians having a 63.4% and Hispanics having a 51% homeownership rate.

Strong wage growth and younger generations reaching prime home buying age contributed to the increase in Black homeownership in 2023, said Nadia Evangelou, senior economist and director of real estate research at the National Association of Realtors.

Yet the Black homeownership rate has stayed below 50% over the past decade, Evangelou said, which means most continue to rent instead of owning. That ultimately limits their ability to grow their net worth and accumulate wealth.  

Policy changes could make it easier for Americans to buy their first home. That could include providing educational opportunities for low-income households, offering down payment assistance and encouraging housing production by reducing zoning restrictions or other regulatory barriers, according to the Urban Institute.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

These big inherited IRA mistakes can shrink your windfall

Published

on

Djelics | E+ | Getty Images

If you’ve inherited an individual retirement account, you may have big plans for the balance — but costly mistakes can quickly shrink the windfall, experts say.

Many investors roll pre-tax 401(k) plans into traditional IRAs, which trigger regular income taxes on future withdrawals. The tax rules are complicated for the heirs who inherit these IRAs.

The average IRA balance was $127,534 during the fourth quarter of 2024, up 38% from 2014, based on a Fidelity analysis of 16.8 million IRA accounts as of Dec. 31.

But some inherited accounts are significantly larger, and errors can be expensive, said IRA expert Denise Appleby, CEO of Appleby Retirement Consulting in Grayson, Georgia.

More from Personal Finance:
This inherited IRA rule change for 2025 could trigger a 25% tax penalty
Half of parents still financially support adult children, report finds
Treasury scraps reporting rule for U.S. small business owners

Here are some big inherited IRA mistakes and how to avoid them, according to financial experts. 

What to know about the ’10-year rule’

Before the Secure Act of 2019, heirs could empty inherited IRAs over their lifetime to reduce yearly taxes, known as the “stretch IRA.”

But since 2020, certain heirs must follow the “10-year rule,” and IRAs must be depleted by the 10th year after the original account owner’s death. This applies to beneficiaries who are not a spouse, minor child, disabled, chronically ill or certain trusts.

Many heirs still don’t know how the 10-year rule works, and that can cost them, Appleby said.

If you don’t drain the balance within 10 years, there’s a 25% IRS penalty on the amount you should have withdrawn, which could be reduced or eliminated if you fix the issue within two years.

Inherited IRAs are a ‘ticking tax bomb’

For pre-tax inherited IRAs, one big mistake could be waiting until the 10th year to withdraw most of the balance, said certified financial planner Trevor Ausen, founder of Authentic Life Financial Planning in Minneapolis.

“For most, it’s a ticking tax bomb,” and the extra income in a single year could push you into a “much higher tax bracket,” he said.

Similarly, some heirs cash out an inherited IRA soon after receiving it without weighing the tax consequences, according to IRA expert and certified public accountant Ed Slott. This move could also bump you into a higher tax bracket, depending on the size of your IRA.

“It’s like a smash and grab,” he said.

Rather than depleting the IRA in one year, advisors typically run multi-year tax projections to help heirs decide when to strategically take funds from the inherited account.

Generally, it’s better to spread out withdrawals over 10 years or take funds if there’s a period when your income is lower, depending on tax brackets, experts say. 

Many heirs must take RMDs in 2025

Starting in 2025, most non-spouse heirs must take required minimum distributions, or RMDs, while emptying inherited IRAs over 10 years, if the original account owner reached RMD age before death, according to final regulations released in July.

That could surprise some beneficiaries since the IRS previously waived penalties for missed RMDs from inherited IRAs, experts say.

While your custodian calculates your RMD, there are instances where it could be inaccurate, Appleby explained.

Tax season is a prime time for scams: Here’s how to protect yourself

For example, there may be mistakes if you rolled over a balance in December or there’s a big age difference between you and your spouse.

“You need to communicate those things to your tax advisor,” she said.

Generally, you calculate RMDs for each account by dividing your prior Dec. 31 balance by a “life expectancy factor” provided by the IRS.

If you skip RMDs or don’t withdraw enough in 2025, you could see a 25% IRS penalty on the amount you should have withdrawn, or 10% if fixed within two years.

But the agency could waive the fee “if you act quickly enough” by sending Form 5329 and attaching a letter of explanation, Appleby said.

“Fix it the first year and tell the IRS you’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” she said.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

U.S. shoppers ‘doom spend’ as they brace for inflation

Published

on

Consumer confidence in where the economy is headed hit a 12-year low this week, according to the Conference Board. A fresh reading out of University of Michigan today also showed a deterioration in overall sentiment with a 12% drop from February, marking the third month of decline.

Despite Americans’ concerns about the economy, they seem to be spending more. Roughly one in five Americans are shopping out of fear of future price hikes, which some experts refer to as doom spending.

Doom spending means making impulsive purchases largely driven out of fear over what the future may bring. In some cases, it’s a kind of retail therapy, but it can also be a strategy to get ahead of economic uncertainty.

“People are worried for a number of reasons,” Wendy De La Rosa, a Wharton professor who studies consumer behavior, told CNBC. “We as humans hate uncertainty and are averse to volatility. And so when there’s whiplash happening at a national level as to what tariffs are happening with which country and how it’s going to affect our domestic industries, that makes people really nervous.”

Consumer spending came in softer than expected in last month, but overall sales continued to grow steadily amid mounting fears of an economic slowdown and inflation.

It’s not just consumers who are concerned. Major companies, such as Walmart, Delta, and American Airlines, along with the Federal Reserve and Wall Street are all signaling uncertainty. The S&P 500 dropped 10% from record highs in February, suggesting investor fears over an economic slowdown.

Watch the video above to learn why Americans are spending more even in tough times and what this pattern means for the economy.

Continue Reading

Trending