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

Disability advocates sue Social Security and DOGE to stop service cuts

Published

4 hours ago

April 3, 2025

Business Finance News

A Social Security Administration (SSA) office in Washington, DC, March 26, 2025.

Saul Loeb | Afp | Getty Images

A group of disability advocates filed a federal lawsuit against the Social Security Administration and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency on Wednesday aimed at stopping cuts to the agency’s services.

Recent changes at the Social Security Administration under DOGE — including staff reductions, the elimination of certain offices and new requirements to seek in-person services — have made it more difficult for individuals with disabilities and older adults to access benefits, the lawsuit argues.

The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The plaintiffs include the National Federation of the Blind, the American Association of People with Disabilities, Deaf Equality, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the Massachusetts Senior Action Council and individual beneficiaries.

“The defendants’ actions are an unprecedented and unconstitutional assault on Social Security benefits, concealed beneath the hollow pretense of bureaucratic ‘reform,'” the complaint states.

In nine weeks, the new administration has “upended” the agency with “sweeping and destabilizing policy changes,” the plaintiffs claim, that have shifted agency functions to local offices while slashing telephone services.

“The result is a systematic dismantling of SSA’s core functions, leaving millions of beneficiaries without the essential benefits they are legally entitled to,” the lawsuit complaint states.

The “mass restructuring” of the agency is unlawful and violates the Rehabilitation Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, the lawsuit argues. The changes also violate multiple constitutional provisions, including the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, according to the plaintiffs.

With 1.1 million disability claims pending, the recent actions could also be life threatening to individuals who are dying or going bankrupt while waiting for decisions, they allege.

The Social Security Administration did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment.

“President Trump has made it clear he is committed to making the federal government more efficient,” White House spokesperson Liz Huston said in an email statement. “He has the authority to manage agency restructuring and workforce reductions, and the administration’s actions are fully compliant with the law.”

Lawsuit alleges reform is ‘administrative vandalism’

People hold signs during a protest against cuts made by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to the Social Security Administration, in White Plains, New York, U.S., March 22, 2025.

Nathan Layne | Reuters

The Social Security Administration sends monthly checks to around 73 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries.

DOGE, which is not an official government entity, has been tasked with cutting “waste, fraud and abuse” within the federal government. President Donald Trump issued an executive order creating DOGE on Jan. 20, the same day he was inaugurated.

Since then, the Social Security Administration has cut 7,000 employee positions and closed the Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity and the Office of Transformation. The Office of Civil Rights and Equal Opportunity handled the agency’s equal employment opportunity and civil rights programs. The Office of Transformation was responsible for coordinating customer service-related initiatives like adding the ability to use digital signatures and electronic documents.

The Social Security Administration has also changed its identity proofing policies for claiming benefits and changing direct deposit information that is expected to require more individuals to visit the agency’s offices in person.

The agency has updated its policy, allowing individuals applying for Social Security Disability Insurance, Medicare, or Supplemental Security Income who cannot use a personal my Social Security account to complete their claim entirely over the telephone, starting April 14.

The reforms amount to the dismantling of “core functions of SSA, abandoning millions of Americans to poverty and indignity,” according to the plaintiffs’ complaint.

“What the defendants frame as ‘reform’ is, in truth, administrative vandalism,” the lawsuit states.

Beneficiaries face long waits, overpayment issues

The plaintiffs include seven individuals whose experiences, including long customer service waits and, in some cases, demands to repay large sums to the Social Security Administration, are detailed in the complaint.

One plaintiff, Treva Olivero, who has been legally blind since birth, was informed in March 2024 that she had been overpaid Social Security disability insurance benefits for five or six years, prompting the agency to demand she repay more than $100,000, according to the complaint.

Olivero’s Medicaid coverage was also terminated soon after, which left her without income and health coverage. She has since been in an “ongoing struggle” to have her disability benefits reinstated, while also facing almost $80,000 in medical debt, according to the complaint.

Fiserv CEO on the nomination to Social Security Commisioner role

Another plaintiff, Merry Schoch, who received Social Security disability insurance for many years, returned to work to help pay for large medical bills after she was hit by a waste management truck in 2022. She reported her income to the Social Security Administration, and the agency made no changes to her benefit payments, according to the complaint.

Two years later, Schoch stopped working and reported her unemployment to the Social Security Administration. In August 2024, the agency then terminated her benefits and informed Schoch that she owed $30,000 for the disability benefit payments she received while working full time, according to the complaint.

Last September, Schoch was informed she could reapply for benefits. However, she has since struggled to get in touch with the agency over the phone, online and in person.

Both Olivero and Schoch are members of the National Federation of the Blind, which is also a plaintiff.

The plaintiffs want the court to reverse the Social Security Administration’s recent reforms, including staff reductions, closures of certain offices and policies requiring in-person appointments.

Personal Finance

Amid trade turmoil, ‘you do not want to time the market’

Published

8 hours ago

April 3, 2025

Business Finance News

Pres. Trump unveils sweeping tariffs: Here's what to know

As President Donald Trump rolls out sweeping new tariffs on goods imported into the United States, Americans are growing increasingly pessimistic about their financial fate.

Consumers worry that the duties will cause inflation to flare up again, while investors fear that higher prices will mean lower profits and more pain for the battered stock market.

As of Thursday morning, futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average were down 1,200 points, or 2.8%. S&P 500 futures sank 3.4%, and Nasdaq-100 futures lost 4%.

But sharp drops — or sudden spikes — in the market are to be expected, according to Jean Chatzky, CEO of HerMoney.com and host of the podcast HerMoney with Jean Chatzky.

“With these volatile markets, you do not want to time the market,” she said of the old adage. “Timing the market doesn’t work — it’s time in the market.”

Trade tensions, inflation and concerns about a possible recession have undermined consumer confidence across the board, several studies show.

Still, it’s normal for most Americans to feel unnerved during heightened volatility, Chatzky said.

“There’s very little doubt that consumers are feeling nervous, maybe more nervous than we’ve felt in quite some time,” she said.

Committing to setting money aside in a high-yield savings account, whether by scaling back on dining out or rideshare expenses, will help regain some financial control, Chatzky said.

Top-yielding online savings accounts currently pay 4.4%, on average, well beyond the savings account rates at some of the largest retail banks, which average just 0.41%.

“Taking action is the best way to feel more resilient,” she said.

It’s understandable why some may be hesitant to continue investing, however, when you are investing for the long term, a down market is an opportunity for dollar-cost averaging, which helps smooth out price fluctuations in the market, Chatzky said.

This is also a good time to check your investments to make sure you are still allocated properly and rebalance as needed, so you are not taking on more risk that you are comfortable with, she added.

Timing the market is a losing bet

Talk yourself down from making any sudden financial moves, Chatzky advised.

Trying to time the market is almost always a bad idea, other financial experts also say. That’s because it’s impossible to know when good and bad days will happen.

For example, the 10 best trading days by percentage gain for the S&P 500 over the past three decades all occurred during recessions, often in close proximity to the worst days, according to a Wells Fargo analysis published last year.

And, although stocks go up and down, the S&P 500 index has an average annualized return of around 10% over the past few decades.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Personal Finance

How to file for a free tax extension if you can’t make April 15 deadline

Published

10 hours ago

April 3, 2025

Business Finance News

Galina Zhigalova | Moment | Getty Images

If you can’t file your taxes by the April 15 deadline, there’s a free, easy way to submit a federal tax extension online, experts say.

Nearly 1 in 3 American admit that they procrastinate when it comes filing their taxes, according to a January survey of more than 1,000 U.S. filers from IPX1031, an investment property exchange service. In addition, about 25% do not feel prepared to file their taxes, the survey found.

As of March 21, the IRS received roughly 80 million individual returns of the 140 million expected this filing season, the agency’s latest reporting shows.

Many natural disaster victims have an automatic tax extension, which varies by jurisdiction. Military members serving in a combat zone also have more time to file.

However, the federal tax deadline for the majority of taxpayers is April 15. It’s possible to push that due date to Oct. 15 by filing for an extension.

But “it’s an extension to file, not an extension to pay,” said Jo Anna Fellon, managing director at financial services firm CBIZ.

“It’s an extension to file, not an extension to pay.”

After the tax deadline, you will start incurring the failure-to-pay penalty of 0.5% of your unpaid taxes for each month or partial month that your taxes remain unpaid. The failure-to-pay penalty has a maximum charge of 25% of your unpaid taxes.

That’s cheaper than the failure-to-file penalty, which applies when you don’t submit your return by the deadline. The failure-to-file penalty is 5% of unpaid taxes monthly, also limited to 25%.

But you’ll also owe interest on your unpaid balance, which is currently 7% and accrues daily after April 15.

You can estimate your taxes owed by creating a “pro forma return” — or mock version of your filing — using as many tax forms as possible, Fellon said.

The ‘easiest way’ to file an extension

There are a few free options to file a tax extension.

For federal taxes, you can complete Form 4868 and mail it to the IRS. But it’s better to file digitally to avoid processing delays amid the agency’s shrinking workforce, experts say. Paper filing can also increase fraud risk, they say.

The “easiest way” is by choosing “extension” when making a payment for 2024, which automatically submits Form 4868, according to Tommy Lucas, a certified financial planner and enrolled agent at Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo in Orlando, Florida.

“It takes all of five minutes,” and you can double-check the transaction via your IRS online account, he said.

IRS Direct Pay

Internal Revenue Service

Alternatively, you can file your extension for free online via IRS Free File, a public-private partnership between the IRS and several tax software companies.

For the 2025 season, you can use IRS Free File for returns if your adjusted gross income, or AGI, was $84,000 or less in 2024. But there’s no income limit to file an extension, Lucas said.