Connect with us

Personal Finance

New Social Security benefit legislation points to need for broader reform

Published

on

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.

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

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.”

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Forgotten 401(k) fees cost workers thousands in retirement savings

Published

on

No access to a 401(k)?

With more Americans job hopping in the wake of the Great Resignation, the risk of “forgetting” a 401(k) plan with a previous employer has jumped, recent studies show. 

As of 2023, there were 29.2 million left-behind 401(k) accounts holding roughly $1.65 trillion in assets, up 20% from two years earlier, according to the latest data by Capitalize, a fintech firm.

Nearly half of employees leave money in their old plans during work transitions, according to a 2024 report from Vanguard.

However, that can come at a cost.

More from Personal Finance:
Average 401(k) balances drop 3% amid market swings
The average 401(k) savings rate hit a record high
On-time debt payments aren’t a magic fix for your credit score

For starters, 41% of workers are unaware that they are paying 401(k) fees at all, a 2021 survey by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found.

In most cases, 401(k) fees, which can include administrative service costs and fees for investment management, are relatively low, depending on the plan provider. 

But there could be additional fees on 401(k) accounts left behind from previous jobs that come with an extra bite.

Fees on forgotten 401(k)s

Jelena Danilovic | Getty Images

Former employees who don’t take their 401(k) with them could be charged an additional fee to maintain those accounts, according to Romi Savova, CEO of PensionBee, an online retirement provider. “If you leave it with the employer, the employer could force the record keeping costs on to you,” she said.

According to PensionBee’s analysis, a $4.55 monthly nonemployee maintenance fee on top of other costs can add up to nearly $18,000 in lost retirement funds over time. Not only does the monthly fee eat into the principal, but workers also lose the compound growth that would have accumulated on the balance, the study found.

Fees on those forgotten 401(k)s can be particularly devastating for long-term savers, said Gil Baumgarten, founder and CEO of Segment Wealth Management in Houston.

That doesn’t necessarily mean it pays to move your balance, he said.

“There are two sides to every story,” he said. “Lost 401(k)s can be problematic, but rolling into a IRA could come with other costs.”

What to do with your old 401(k)

When workers switch jobs, they may be able to move the funds to a new employer-sponsored plan or roll their old 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account, which many people do.

But IRAs typically have higher investment fees than 401(k)s and those rollovers can also cost workers thousands of dollars over decades, according to another study, by The Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonprofit research organization.

Collectively, workers who roll money into IRAs could pay $45.5 billion in extra fees over a hypothetical retirement period of 25 years, Pew estimated.

Another option is to cash out an old 401(k), which is generally considered the least desirable option because of the hefty tax penalty. Even so, Vanguard found 33% of workers do that.

How to find a forgotten 401(k) 

While leaving your retirement savings in your former employer’s plan is often the simplest option, the risk of losing track of an old plan has been growing.

Now, 25% of all 401(k) plan assets are left behind or forgotten, according to the most recent data from Capitalize, up from 20% two years prior.

However, thanks to “Secure 2.0,” a slew of measures affecting retirement savers, the Department of Labor created the retirement savings lost and found database to help workers find old retirement plans.

“Ultimately, it can’t really be lost,” Baumgarten said. “Every one of these companies has a responsibility to provide statements.” Often simply updating your contact information can help reconnect you with these records, he advised.   

You can also use your Social Security number to track down funds through the National Registry of Unclaimed Retirement Benefits, a private-sector database.

In 2022, a group of large 401(k) plan administrators launched the Portability Services Network.

That consortium works with defined contributor plan rollover specialist Retirement Clearinghouse on auto portability, or the automatic transfer of small-balance 401(k)s. Depending on the plan, employees with up to $7,000 could have their savings automatically transferred into a workplace retirement account with their new employer when they change jobs.

The goal is to consolidate and maintain those retirement savings accounts, rather than cashing them out or risk losing track of them, during employment transitions, according to Mike Shamrell, vice president of thought leadership at Fidelity Investments, the nation’s largest provider of 401(k) plans and a member of the Portability Services Network.

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube.

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

‘What’s the point’ of saving money

Published

on

Xavier Lorenzo | Moment | Getty Images

Gen Z seems to have a case of economic malaise.

Nearly half (49%) of its adult members — the oldest of whom are in their late 20s — say planning for the future feels “pointless,” according to a recent Credit Karma poll.

A freewheeling attitude toward summer spending has taken root among young adults who feel financial “despair” and “hopelessness,” said Courtney Alev, a consumer financial advocate at Credit Karma.

They think, “What’s the point when it comes to saving for the future?” Alev said.

That “YOLO mindset” among Generation Z — the cohort born from roughly 1997 through 2012 — can be dangerous: If unchecked, it might lead young adults to rack up high-interest debt they can’t easily repay, perhaps leading to delayed milestones like moving out of their parents’ home or saving for retirement, Alev said.

But your late teens and early 20s is arguably the best time for young people to develop healthy financial habits: Starting to invest now, even a little bit, will yield ample benefits via decades of compound interest, experts said.

“There are a lot of financial implications in the long term if these young people aren’t planning for their financial future and [are] spending willy-nilly however they want,” Alev said.

Why Gen Z feels disillusioned

That said, that many feel disillusioned is understandable in the current environment, experts said.

The labor market has been tough lately for new entrants and those looking to switch jobs, experts said.

The U.S. unemployment rate is relatively low, at 4.2%. However, it’s much higher for Americans 22 to 27 years old: 5.8% for recent college grads and 6.9% for those without a bachelor’s degree, according to Federal Reserve Bank of New York data as of March 2025.

More from FA Playbook:

Here’s a look at other stories affecting the financial advisor business.

Young adults are also saddled with debt concerns, experts said.

“They feel they don’t have any money and many of them are in debt,” said Winnie Sun, co-founder and managing director of Sun Group Wealth Partners, based in Irvine, California. “And they’re wondering if the degree they have (or are working toward) will be of value if A.I. takes all their jobs anyway. So is it just pointless?”

About 50% of bachelor’s degree recipients in the 2022-23 class graduated with student debt, with an average debt of $29,300, according to College Board.

The federal government restarted collections on student debt in default in May, after a five-year pause.

The Biden administration’s efforts to forgive large swaths of student debt, including plans to help reduce monthly payments for struggling borrowers, were largely stymied in court.

“Some hoped some or more of it would be forgiven, and that didn’t turn out to be the case,” said Sun, a member of CNBC’s Financial Advisor Council.

Meanwhile, in a 2024 report, the New York Fed found credit card delinquency rates were rising faster for Gen Z than for other generations. About 15% had maxed out their cards, more than other cohorts, it said.

Market Navigator: Buy now, pay later boom

It’s also “never been easier to buy things,” with the rise of buy now, pay later lending, for example, Alev said.

BNPL has pushed the majority of Gen Z users — 77% — to say the service has encouraged them to spend more than they can afford, according to the Credit Karma survey. The firm polled 1,015 adults ages 18 and older, 182 of whom are from Gen Z.

These financial challenges compound an environment of general political and financial uncertainty, amid on-again-off-again tariff policy and its potential impact on inflation and the U.S. economy, for example, experts said.

“You start stacking all these things on top of each other and it can create a lack of optimism for young people looking to get started in their financial lives,” Alev said.

How to manage that financial malaise

Patricio Nahuelhual | Moment | Getty Images

“This is actually the most exciting time to invest, because you’re young,” Sun said.

Instituting mindful spending habits, such as putting a waiting period of at least 24 hours in place before buying a non-essential item, can help prevent unnecessary spending, she added.

Sun advocates for paying down high-interest debt before focusing on investing, so interest payments don’t quickly spiral out of control. Or, as an alternative, they can try to fund a 401(k) to get their full company match while also working to pay off high-interest debt, she said.

“Instead of getting into the ‘woe is me’ mode, change that into taking action,” Sun said. “Make a plan, take baby steps and get excited about opportunities to invest.”

Continue Reading

Personal Finance

Trump admin seeks Education Department layoff ban lifted

Published

on

A demonstrator speaks through a megaphone during a Defend Our Schools rally to protest U.S. President Donald Trump’s executive order to shut down the U.S. Department of Education, outside its building in Washington, D.C., U.S., March 21, 2025.

Kent Nishimura | Reuters

The Trump administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to lift a court order to reinstate U.S. Department of Education employees the administration had terminated as part of its efforts to dismantle the agency.

Officials for the administration are arguing to the high court that U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston didn’t have the authority to require the Education Department to rehire the workers. More than 1,300 employees were affected by the mass layoffs.

The staff reduction “effectuates the Administration’s policy of streamlining the Department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the Administration’s view, are better left to the States,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in the filing.

A federal appeals court had refused on Wednesday to lift the judge’s ruling.

In his May 22 preliminary injunction, Joun pointed out that the staff cuts led to the closure of seven out of 12 offices tasked with the enforcement of civil rights, including protecting students from discrimination on the basis of race and disability.

Meanwhile, the entire team that supervises the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, was also eliminated, the judge said. (Around 17 million families apply for college aid each year using the form, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.)

The Education Dept. announced its reduction in force on March 11 that would have gutted the agency’s staff.

Two days later, 21 states — including Michigan, Nevada and New York — filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for its staff cuts at the agency.

After President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 20 aimed at dismantling the Education Department, more parties sued to save the department, including the American Federation of Teachers.

This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.

Continue Reading

Trending