Latest news with #SocialSecurity
Economic Times
3 hours ago
- Business
- Economic Times
Social Security $600 Bonus Payment in July: Is it real or fake? Here's what SSA says
Reuters United States Social Security Administration logo and U.S. flag are seen in this illustration. (REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo) Many online claims have surfaced about a $600 bonus being added to Social Security payments in July 2025. These claims are circulating widely on platforms like TikTok and Facebook. However, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has made no such announcement. The misunderstanding appears to be based on confusion about the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).Social media posts have stated that SSA has approved a $600 payment for all Social Security beneficiaries. These claims say the payments will start in June 2025 and are meant to offset rising living costs. The rumor has spread fast and reached many users on Facebook and TikTok. Many users believe the payment will automatically appear in their bank accounts along with regular monthly deposits. The content claims these bonus checks are new and separate from the usual adjustments. Also Read: Supreme Court Key Rulings: All details about birthright citizenship, Obamacare task force, LGBTQ school books The SSA has issued no official statement approving a new $600 bonus payment. The administration has not introduced any special increase for July. There is no such program in the current schedule. The $600 figure seems to come from confusion over the COLA adjustment. COLA is calculated each year and spread across monthly payments. It is not sent as a single one-time stands for Cost of Living Adjustment. It helps Social Security beneficiaries keep up with inflation. The SSA calculates this using inflation data from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical review takes place from July to September each year. The rate is announced in October and takes effect from January of the next 2025, the COLA increase is 2.5%. If a person receives $2,000 in monthly benefits, this means a $50 increase per month. Over 12 months, the total increase becomes $600. Also Read: Squid Game Season 3 Ending: Who is Front Man and who wins the game? Here's new twist in last episode The increase linked to COLA already started in January 2025. Beneficiaries have received the raised amount in their monthly checks since then. The timing mentioned in the online posts does not match actual payment is no extra money being sent in July. What people are calling a 'bonus' is simply the total yearly increase due to the COLA have used this confusion to trick beneficiaries. Some people have been asked to share personal details like Social Security numbers and bank account information. There are also reports of fraud targeting Medicare SSA warns all recipients not to trust unverified sources and to avoid sharing personal data online or over the phone unless certain of the contact's ensures that government payments like Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits keep up with 2025 increase is expected to give an average boost of $47 per month. In total, this is around $564 for the year. Some people with higher benefits may see a yearly increase over $600. But most recipients will get less. Retirees will also face increased Medicare premiums. The COLA adjustment may only balance rising costs, not raise disposable income. Is there a $600 Social Security bonus in July 2025? No, the SSA has not approved any $600 bonus. The confusion comes from the annual COLA increase already applied since January. How is the COLA increase applied to Social Security benefits? The COLA increase is spread monthly. A 2.5% hike in 2025 gives around $47 more per month for average retirees.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Business
- Time of India
Social Security $600 Bonus Payment in July: Is it real or fake? Here's what SSA says
Online Rumors SSA Confirms No Bonus Exists Live Events What is COLA? Payments Already Began in January Fraud Risks What COLA Really Means? FAQs (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Many online claims have surfaced about a $600 bonus being added to Social Security payments in July 2025. These claims are circulating widely on platforms like TikTok and Facebook. However, the Social Security Administration (SSA) has made no such announcement. The misunderstanding appears to be based on confusion about the annual Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA).Social media posts have stated that SSA has approved a $600 payment for all Social Security beneficiaries. These claims say the payments will start in June 2025 and are meant to offset rising living costs. The rumor has spread fast and reached many users on Facebook and users believe the payment will automatically appear in their bank accounts along with regular monthly deposits. The content claims these bonus checks are new and separate from the usual SSA has issued no official statement approving a new $600 bonus payment. The administration has not introduced any special increase for July. There is no such program in the current $600 figure seems to come from confusion over the COLA adjustment. COLA is calculated each year and spread across monthly payments. It is not sent as a single one-time stands for Cost of Living Adjustment. It helps Social Security beneficiaries keep up with inflation. The SSA calculates this using inflation data from the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical review takes place from July to September each year. The rate is announced in October and takes effect from January of the next 2025, the COLA increase is 2.5%. If a person receives $2,000 in monthly benefits, this means a $50 increase per month. Over 12 months, the total increase becomes $ increase linked to COLA already started in January 2025. Beneficiaries have received the raised amount in their monthly checks since then. The timing mentioned in the online posts does not match actual payment is no extra money being sent in July. What people are calling a 'bonus' is simply the total yearly increase due to the COLA have used this confusion to trick beneficiaries. Some people have been asked to share personal details like Social Security numbers and bank account information. There are also reports of fraud targeting Medicare SSA warns all recipients not to trust unverified sources and to avoid sharing personal data online or over the phone unless certain of the contact's ensures that government payments like Social Security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), and Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits keep up with 2025 increase is expected to give an average boost of $47 per month. In total, this is around $564 for the year. Some people with higher benefits may see a yearly increase over $600. But most recipients will get will also face increased Medicare premiums . The COLA adjustment may only balance rising costs, not raise disposable the SSA has not approved any $600 bonus. The confusion comes from the annual COLA increase already applied since COLA increase is spread monthly. A 2.5% hike in 2025 gives around $47 more per month for average retirees.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
This cryptocurrency is bitcoin's biggest challenger yet — and it just might take over your wallet
As originally envisaged, cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin were intended to provide an alternative to government-backed money in all its uses. Bitcoin's BTCUSD market capitalization has risen dramatically, but it remains a volatile speculative asset rather than a widely used exchange and payment method. Instead, stablecoins have emerged as a viable alternative to the traditional banking system for payments and remittances. These digital coins seek to maintain stable value by pegging to currencies like the U.S. dollar DXY, combining blockchain technology with reserve backing. My wife and I have $7,000 in pensions, $140,000 cash, plus $3,500 in Social Security. Can we afford to retire? Most American weddings are a lot more extravagant than the nuptials of Amazon's Jeff Bezos S&P 500 on pace for record high for first time in 4 months. What could push stocks higher from here? Israel-Iran clash delivers a fresh shock to investors. History suggests this is the move to make. 'He doesn't seem to care': My secretive father, 81, added my name to a bank account. What about my mom? Stablecoins have a current market capitalization of about $250 billion. While modest relative to bitcoin, they are a growing channel for more accessible and efficient financial intermediation — but also raise concerns about monetary control, illicit transactions, user protection and financial stability. Moreover, a fundamental divide has emerged between the U.S. approach to the regulation of stablecoins, which encourages private-sector innovation, and the European approach, which prioritizes sovereign monetary and regulatory control. This divergence could profoundly reshape the global financial structure. The digital-finance ecosystem took shape with the launch of bitcoin in 2009, following the global financial crisis of 2008. Conceived as a decentralized alternative to government-issued currency, bitcoin uses blockchain technology — a transparent, tamper-resistant ledger that all users can view and verify — to facilitate peer-to-peer transactions without relying on banks or payment intermediaries. Its supply is capped through a resource-intensive mining process, and its price is entirely determined by the market. As of June 2025, bitcoin's market capitalization has reached roughly $2.1 trillion. Yet despite its scale, bitcoin remains a highly volatile asset that is slow and costly to exchange. It is still used primarily for speculative investment rather than as a medium for financial transactions. Stablecoins emerged to address bitcoin's usability problems by offering price stability and lower transaction costs. Stablecoins vary widely in design, risk and currency backing. They combine blockchain technology with reserve backing — typically in the form of low-risk, liquid assets — to maintain a stable value against a peg. They come in multiple forms, each with distinct risk profiles. The most widely used are U.S.-dollar-pegged, tokenized e-money stablecoins such as Tether USDTUSD, launched in 2014, and USD Coin USDCUSD, launched in 2018. These are backed 1:1 by cash and short-term U.S. Treasury securities. Other fiat-backed variants track currencies like the euro EURUSD (EURT, EURS), the yen USDJPY (JPYC) and several emerging-market currencies. More: A new plan might be taking shape in Washington to help manage explosive U.S. debt More complex types include asset-backed stablecoins (collateralized by commodities such as gold GC00), crypto-collateralized tokens (typically overcollateralized with digital assets by 150% or more), and algorithmic models, which attempt to maintain price stability through programmed supply adjustments rather than reserve backing. These design differences have direct implications for both price stability and regulatory risk. Stablecoins can generate returns, but they also involve risks. While stablecoins themselves do not pay interest, they can be deployed on crypto-lending platforms that offer returns through pooled lending mechanisms. However, these returns do carry risk — as highlighted starkly by the 2022 collapse of FTX, a major crypto exchange and lending platform. The stablecoin ecosystem is becoming increasingly competitive, with new crypto-focused issuers continuing to dominate market share. Established financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase JPM (with JPM Coin) and PayPal Holdings PYPL (with PYUSD) are also entering the space, signaling a convergence between traditional finance and blockchain-based payments. Central banks have also sought to compete in the digital space by issuing central-bank digital currencies (CBDCs), which are digital versions of national currencies based on electronic balances in a central ledger managed by the central bank. Yet these remain small compared to global holdings of crypto assets and stablecoin usage. Stablecoins now process more than $15 billion in daily transactions, compared to $2 billion to $4 billion for bitcoin. According to estimates by blockchain-analytics firms, around two-thirds of stablecoin transactions are associated with 'DeFi trading' — the trading of digital tokens, such as bitcoin and stablecoins, among holders of these coins, providing a predictable medium of exchange for trading and lending outside the banking system. But stablecoins are increasingly being used for 'real-world' purposes, particularly in emerging markets and underbanked regions. One growing use is international remittances, since stablecoins can significantly lower transfer costs from an average of 6.6% to under 3%. In high-inflation economies such as Argentina and Turkey, households are turning to U.S.-dollar-denominated stablecoins as a store of value to hedge against rapidly depreciating local currencies. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, stablecoins are helping to expand financial access, particularly as mobile wallets and digital infrastructure improve. These developments suggest that stablecoins are now functioning as practical financial tools in places where conventional financial services are costly or unreliable. The illicit use of stablecoins is rising, although it is still a relatively small share of overall usage. Stablecoins now account for approximately 63% of all illicit crypto-transaction volume, according to the Chainalysis 2025 Crypto Crime Report. This marks a shift away from bitcoin, which had previously been the dominant medium for crypto-based illicit activity. However, all crypto use for illicit activity accounts for less than 1% of all illicit financial activity, while only 0.14% of all crypto transactions were illicit, according to the Chainalysis report. The growing use of stablecoins is raising a complex set of policy concerns. Such concerns include the risk of undermining official currencies as more transactions migrate to stablecoin platforms, their potential use in illicit financial flows, gaps in safeguards for retail users, and unresolved questions surrounding the taxation of returns on crypto assets. Regulatory concerns center on financial-stability risks arising from the increasing role of stablecoins in financial intermediation. Central banks and regulators now consider large stablecoin issuers as systemically important institutions. For example, the U.S. Financial Stability Oversight Council's 2024 Annual Report noted that stablecoins 'continue to represent a potential risk to financial stability because they are acutely vulnerable to runs absent appropriate risk-management standards.' Concerns were highlighted by the May 2022 collapse of TerraUSD (which lost its dollar peg entirely) and the November 2022 failure of the FTX exchange, as well as brief depegging events affecting even major stablecoins like USDC under banking-sector stress in March 2023. Such events can have systemic implications given that stablecoins' integration with securities markets, custody chains and payment processors creates links to the core financial infrastructure. A related concern is that weak reserve management by stablecoin issuers or trading platforms could trigger collateral fire sales during mass redemptions, driving down the cost of assets and potentially destabilizing other parts of the financial markets. To date, progress in addressing these risks has been uneven, slowed by the absence of clear regulatory mandates over stablecoin activities and by diverging views among policymakers and agencies on the dangers and potential benefits of this rapidly evolving ecosystem. A transatlantic divergence in the regulation of stablecoins has widened. The United States, under the Trump administration, views stablecoins primarily as vehicles for innovation — tools to expand consumer choice and provide more efficient forms of financial intermediation, with the additional benefit that the rapidly rising use of dollar stablecoins helps to bolster dollar dominance globally. An executive order issued in January promotes stablecoins while explicitly prohibiting central-bank digital currencies in the U.S. Meanwhile, the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, which has just been passed by the U.S. Senate, proposes a light-touch but structured framework for stablecoins. The GENIUS Act mandates that stablecoins be backed 1:1 with safe, liquid assets and that issuers undergo regular audits and adhere to disclosure requirements. However, it carves out a separate regime for smaller issuers — those with less than $10 billion in outstanding stablecoins — allowing them to operate under state-level oversight. This has raised concerns about regulatory arbitrage and the potential for inconsistent standards across jurisdictions, and the potential for systemic risk from a growing multitude of alternative forms of digital money. Read: A new Senate bill indicates the government is taking stablecoins seriously Europe is taking the opposite approach, prioritizing tighter control. This is not just a technical difference from the United States; rather, it reflects competing visions about who should control the future of digital finance: private companies or government institutions. The European Central Bank's concerns focus on monetary sovereignty and the ability to implement effective monetary policy in a digital world. The ECB is accelerating the development of a digital euro to counter the growth of U.S. stablecoins, with pilot testing of a coordinated digital-payment platform expected by the end of 2025. At the same time, European regulations treat stablecoin issuers much like banks, with equivalent capital and operational rules. The E.U.'s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation, adopted in 2024, imposes stricter rules than the U.S. GENIUS Act. It treats large stablecoin issuers like banks, requiring them to maintain strong capital buffers, establish clear liability frameworks and implement tight operational controls. MiCA also seeks to limit the spread of noneuro stablecoins, particularly dollar-denominated ones, by increasing compliance costs and making authorization more challenging for foreign issuers. Diverging approaches to regulating stablecoins risk fragmenting the global digital-finance landscape: a dollar-based stablecoin system in the U.S., a state-backed European digital-euro regime, and a mix of regional approaches elsewhere. These competing models risk disrupting the transmission of monetary policy, cross-border capital flows and regulatory coherence. Stablecoins are no longer a niche innovation; they are testing the foundations of modern monetary and payment systems. Their rapid expansion is reshaping financial-stability risks, straining regulatory boundaries and challenging the roles of central banks and supervisory authorities. Stablecoins must now be considered an integral part of the core financial architecture. As private digital tokens gain ground, existing oversight and payment-monitoring frameworks are struggling to keep pace. While regulators debate their response, the market — driven mainly by U.S.-based technology and market actors — is moving ahead. A coordinated international response to stablecoins is needed before their scale outpaces the capacity of any single jurisdiction to manage the risks they pose to monetary and financial stability. Udaibir Das is a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation America. He is also a visiting professor at the National Council of Applied Economic Research and a senior nonresident adviser at the Bank of England and the Centre for Social and Economic Progress. This commentary was originally published by Econofact — More: This investment turned $50,000 into $23 million in 10 years. It's still a buy. Plus: Why the plunging U.S. dollar is putting your spending and savings power at risk My job is offering me a payout. Should I take a $61,000 lump sum or $355 a month for life? How can I buy my niece a home in her name only — without alienating or upsetting her husband? There's an important market indicator that suggests investors remain wary. It's good news for stocks. I've been a stay-at-home mom for 10 years. Do I take a part-time job to spend more time with my kids or get a job for six figures? My friend asked me to chip in $1,600 for her son's prom-night limo. Has the world gone mad?
Boston Globe
5 hours ago
- Business
- Boston Globe
Gloomy Americans cut back on spending as inflation ticks higher
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up And incomes dropped after a one-time adjustment to Social Security benefits had boosted payments in March and April. Social Security payments were raised for some retirees who had worked for state and local governments. Advertisement Still, the data suggests that growth is cooling as Americans become more cautious, in part because President Donald Trump's tariffs have raised the cost of some goods, such as appliances, tools, and audio equipment. Consumer sentiment has also fallen sharply this year in the wake of the sometimes-chaotic rollout of the duties. And while the unemployment rate remains low, hiring has been weak, leaving those without jobs struggling to find new work. Advertisement Consumer spending rose just 0.5 percent in the first three months of this year and has been sluggish in the first two months of the second quarter. And spending on services ticked up just 0.1 percent in May, the smallest montly increase in four and a half years. 'Because consumers are not in a strong enough shape to handle those (higher prices), they are spending less on recreation, travel, hotels, that type of thing,' said Luke Tilley, chief economist at Wilmington Trust. Spending on airfares, restaurant meals, and hotels all fell last month, Friday's report showed. At the same time, the figures suggest that President Donald Trump's broad-based tariffs are still having only a modest effect on overall prices. The increasing costs of some goods have been partly offset by falling prices for new cars, airline fares, and apartment rentals, among other items. On a monthly basis, in fact, inflation was mostly tame. Prices rose just 0.1 percent in May from April, according to the Commerce Department, the same as the previous month. Core prices climbed 0.2 percent in May, more than economists expected and above last month's 0.1 percent. Gas prices fell 2.6 percent just from April to May. Economists point to several reasons for why Trump's tariffs have yet to accelerate inflation, as many analysts expected. Like American consumers, companies imported billions of dollars of goods in the spring before the duties took full affect, and many items currently on store shelves were imported without paying higher levies. There are early indications that that is beginning to change. Nike announced this week that it expects US tariffs will cost the company $1 billion this year. It will institute 'surgical' price increases in the fall. It's not the first retailer to warn of price hikes when students are heading back to school. Advertisement Walmart said last month that that its customers will start to see higher prices this month and next as back-to-school shopping goes into high gear. Also, much of what the US imports is made up of raw materials and parts that are used to make goods in the US It can take time for those higher input costs to show up in consumer prices. Economists at JPMorgan have argued that many companies are absorbing the cost of the tariffs, for now. Doing so can reduce their profit margins, which could weigh on hiring. Cooling inflation has put more of a spotlight on the Federal Reserve and its chair, Jerome Powell. The Fed ramped up its short-term interest rate in 2022 and 2023 to slow the economy and combat inflation, which jumped to a four-decade high nearly three years ago. With price increases now nearly back to the Fed's target, some economists — and some Fed officials — say that the central bank could reduce its rate back to a level that doesn't slow or stimulate growth. Trump has also repeatedly attached the Fed for not cutting rates, calling Powell a 'numskull' and a 'fool.' But Powell said in congressional testimony earlier this week that the Fed wants to see how inflation and the economy evolve before it cuts rates. Most other Fed policymakers have expressed a similar view.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Contributor: Social Security is headed for a cliff. When will voters care?
Considering recent news, you may have missed that the 2025 trustees reports for Social Security and Medicare are out. Once again, they confirm what we've known for decades: Both programs are barreling straight toward insolvency. The Social Security retirement trust fund and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust fund are each on pace to run dry by 2033. When that happens, seniors will face an automatic 23% cut in their Social Security benefits. Medicare will reduce payments to hospitals by 11%. These cuts are not theoretical. They're baked into the law. If nothing changes, they will be made. I have nothing against cuts of this size. In fact, if it were up to me, I would cut deeper. Medicare is a terrible source of distortions for our convoluted healthcare market and needs to be reined in. Social Security was created back when being too old to work meant being poor. That's no longer the case for as many people. Thanks to decades of compound investment growth, widespread homeownership and rising asset values, seniors are no longer the systematically vulnerable group they once were. The top income quintile includes a growing number of retirees who draw substantial incomes from pensions and investment portfolios with Social Security benefits layered on top. These programs have become a transfer of wealth from the relatively poor to the relatively wealthy and old. Of course, America still has some poor seniors, so cutting across the board is bad. This is why the cuts should be targeted, not the automatic effects in 2033. And Congress should get started now. The size of the problem is staggering. Social Security's shortfall now equals 3.82% of taxable payroll or roughly 22% of scheduled benefit obligations. Avoiding insolvency eight years from now would require an immediate 27% benefit cut, according to former Social Security and Medicare trustee Charles Blahous. Alternatively, legislators could raise the payroll tax from 12.4% to 16.05%. That's a 29.4% increase. Or they could restructure Social Security so that only people who need the money would receive payments. But because facing this problem in an honest way is politically toxic, legislators are ignoring it. Blame does not rest solely with Congress. The American public has made it abundantly clear that they don't want reforms. They don't want benefit cuts or tax increases, and they certainly don't want higher retirement ages. So politicians pretend everything is fine. Congress does deserve fresh criticism for making things worse. Last year, legislators passed the misnamed 'Social Security Fairness Act,' giving windfall benefits to government workers who didn't pay into the system — which enlarges the shortfall. This year, the House proposed expanded tax breaks for seniors in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' which would further worsen the problem. The cost of political giveaways is steep. Social Security's 75-year unfunded obligation has now reached $28 trillion, up from $25 trillion just a year ago. Medicare is no better. Its costs are projected to rise from 3.8% of gross domestic product today to 6.7% by the end of the century (8.8% under more realistic assumptions). Most of the additional spending will be financed through general revenue, meaning more borrowing and more pressure on the federal budget. As Romina Boccia of the Cato Institute has documented, other countries have taken meaningful steps to address similar challenges. Sweden and Germany implemented automatic stabilizers that slow benefit growth or raise taxes when their systems become unsustainable. New Zealand and Canada have moved toward more modest, poverty-focused pension systems that offer basic support without bankrupting the state. A few weeks ago, Denmark increased the retirement age to 70. These are serious reforms. The U.S. has done nothing. Options exist. Policymakers could gradually raise the retirement age to reflect modern, healthier, longer lives. They could cap benefits at $2,050 monthly, preserving income for the bottom 50% of beneficiaries while progressively reducing benefits for the top half. They could reform the tax treatment of retirement income to encourage private savings, as Canada has done with its tax-free savings accounts. Any combination of these reforms would help. But that would require admitting that the current path is unsustainable. It would require telling voters the truth. It would require courage. So far, these admirable traits have been sorely lacking in our politicians. The programs' trustees have made the stakes clear: The only alternatives to reform will be drastic benefit cuts or massive tax hikes. Waiting until the trust funds are empty will leave no room for gradual, targeted solutions. It will force crisis-mode slashing that will hurt the most vulnerable. The ultimate blame is with voters who continue to reward politicians for promising the impossible. A functioning democracy cannot survive if the electorate insists on voting benefits for themselves to the point of insolvency. At some point, reality asserts itself. That moment is rapidly approaching. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
